"^^ 


y^ 


J 


Srom  f^e  feiBrarg  of 
(pxofcBBox  ^amuef  (gtiffer 

in  ^emorg  of 
Sub^e  ^amuef  (gtiffer  Q0recftinrib<5e 

^Jreeenteb  fig 

^dmuef  (Btiffer  (grecftinrib^e  feon^ 

fo  t^e  feifirarg  of 

(Princeton  J^eofo^icaf  ^eminarg 


5. 


/£3, 


^Inn!°willi.n>-  1752-1808. 
A  collection  of  the  essays 

on  the  subject  of 


COLLECTION 


ESSAYS 

ON    THE    SUBJECT    Of 

EPISCOPACY, 

Which  originally  appeared  in  the  Albany  Centirie!, 

And  which  are  ascribed  principally  to 

THE  REV.  DR.  LINN,  THE  REV.  MR.  BEASLEY, 
AND  THOMAS  Y.  HOW,  ESQ. 

VVith  additional  Notes  and  Remarks. 


BctorTJorli : 

Printed  by  T.  ^jT  J.  Swords, 
No.  160  Pearl-Street. 

1806, 


PREFACE. 

J.N  the  course  of  the  last  summer,  a  writer  appeared  in 
the  Albany  Centinel,  who  devoted  a  series  of  essays, 
which  he  entitled  "  Miscellanies,"  to  the  discussion  of 
miscellaneous  topics.  Strictures  on  the  subject  of  Church 
Government  appeared  in  his  9th  number.  The  very 
pointed  remarks  which  he  made  on  the  Episcopal  Church, 
and  on  Episcopal  principles,  accompanied  with  the  avowal 
that  the  subject  was  to  be  continued  in  future  numbers, 
rendered  necessary  a  defence  of  those  principles  and  that 
Church  which  were  thus  assailed.  The  friends  of  the 
Church  and  of  Episcopacy,  however  reluctant  to  discuss 
an  important  religious  topic  in  a  public  paper,  were  thus 
compelled  to  resort  to  the  same  mode,  for  defence,  which 
the  author  of  Miscellanies  had  chosen  for  his  attack. 
Accordingly  "  A  Layman"  commenced  a  defence  of  the 
Church,  and  was  followed  by  *'  Cyprian,"  and  others: 
while  the  author  of  Miscellanies  was  not  backward  in  fol- 
lowing up  the  assault  and  in  repelling  his  opponents. 

The  numbers  entitled  Miscellanies^  and  the  other  pro- 
ductions on  the  same  side.,  are  all  attributed  to  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Linn,  an  eminent  Clergyman  of  the  Dutch  Reformed 
Church  at  Albany,  and  formerly  of  New- York.  For  the 
able  elucidation  and  defence  of  Episcopacy  by  a  "  Lay- 
man" and  "  Cyprian,"  its  friends  are  indebted  to  Thomas 
Yardley  How,  Esq.*  and  the  Rev.  Frederick  Beas- 

•  This  gentleman  was  educated  to  the  bar,  and  when  the  late  Gen. 
Hamilton  held  a  high  stution  in  the  army  raised  by  Congress  a  itvf 
years  since,  acted  as  his  private  Secretary. 


iv  PREFACE. 

LEY,  Rector  of  St.  Peter's  Church,  Albany.  The  letters 
signed  "  An  Episcopalian,"  on  the  subject  of  a  pam- 
phlet generally  ascribed  to  a  distinguished  Clergyman  of 
the  Episcopal  Church,  which  the  author  of  Miscellanies 
supposed  favourable  to  his  sentiments,  were  written  by 
the  author  of  that  pamphlet ;  and  the  short  pieces  signed 
"  Detector"  and  "  Vindex"  were  written  by  the  author 
of  those  books  which  the  author  of  Miscellanies  made 
the  pretext  of  his  attack  on  the  Episcopal  Church. 

The  author  of  those  books  can  most  conscientiously  de-r 
clare,  that,  in  the  passages  which  have  been  deemed  offen- 
sive, his  sole  object  was  to  contribute  his  humble  efforts  tp 
diffuse,  among  those  of  his  own  communion,  a  knowledge 
of  the  principles  of  their  Church.  It  never  occurred  to 
him  that  this  exercise  of  an  acknowledged  right,  and,  as 
lie  conceived,  of  an  important  duty,  in  books  addressed 
to  Episcopalians,  and  designed  for  their  use,  would  be 
the  cause  of  offence  to  others,  and  give  rise  to  a  news- 
paper attack  upon  the  Episcopal  Church,  The  attention 
of  many  persons  has  now,  however,  been  awakened  to  the 
subject  of  the  constitution  of  the  Christian  Church ;  and 
in  order  to  enable  them  seriously  to  investigate  the  sub- 
jiect,  it  has  been  deemed  adviseable  to  collect  and  to  pub- 
lish all  the  pieces  which  appeared,  on  both  sides  of  this 
question,  in  the  Albany  Centinel.  The  author  of  Mis- 
cellanies has,  with  great  Industry,  collected  together  all  the 
arguments  against  Episcopacy.  He  has  indeed  dealt 
largely  in  assertions.  These,  of  course,  could  not  be  ex- 
posed and  refuted  in  as  concise  a  manner  as  they  were 
made.  And  as  the  printers  became  at  kngth  extremely 
averse  to  publishing  on  the  subject,  the  advocates  of  Epis- 
copacy were  compelled  to  pass  by,  W\xho\xt particular  notice, 


PREFACE.  V 

several  of  the  assertions  of  the  author  of  Miscellanies. 
These  are  principally  the  subjects  of  the  additional  yiotes 
and  remarks  added  to  this  volume  by  the  Editor. 

Some  persons,  who  condemn,  at  all  times,  religious  con- 
troversy, may  be  of  opinion,  that  this  controversy  should 
have  been  left  to  perish  with  the  newspapers  of  the  day 
in  which  it  appeared.  But  these  persons  are  entreated  to 
remember,  that  controversy  often  unavoidably  results 
from  the  discharge  of  the  duty  explicitly  urged  in  Holy 
Writ,  to  "  contend  earnestly  for  the  faith."  The  here- 
sies and  schisms  that  prevail  in  the  Church  arise  not  from 
the  imperfection  of  the  sacred  volume,  but  from  the 
frailty  and  corruption  of  human  nature ;  and  they  even 
powerfully  corroborate  the  divine  origin  of  those  Scrip- 
tures, which  predict  their  rise  and  prevalence.  Steadfastly 
to  oppose  them,  however,  must  certainly  be  the  obvious 
duty  of  every  friend  to  the  purity  and  success  of  divine 
truth.  And  no  one  who  considers  that  every  Christian 
Minister  must  be  "  called  of  God  as  was  Aaron,"  must 
be  vested  with  a  ^/W/ze  co7nmission;  no  one  who  consi- 
ders that  some  jnode  must  have  been  originall}'  esta- 
blished for  perpetuating^  agreeably  to  the  promise  of  the 
divine  Head  of  the  Church,  the  ministerial  authoritj^, 
"  alway,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world ;"  no  one  who 
considers  how  great  stress  is  laid  by  our  Saviour  and  his 
Aposdes  on  Church  unitij ;  no  one  who  considers  how 
much  the  divisions  that  distract  Christians  obstruct  the 
diffusion  of  divine  truth,  v/ill  hesitate  to  declare,  that 
every  inquiry  on  the  subject  of  the  mode  of  deriving 
from  the  Head  of  the  Church  the  ministerial  commission  ; 
and  every  inquiry  concerning  the  principles  of  that  Chris- 
tian untty^  Avhich  preserved  the  glory  and  purity  of  tlie 


vi  PREFACE. 

primitive  Church,  and  is  still  necessary  for  the  same  im- 
portant object,  is  of  primary  and  essential  importance. 
Hence  too  it  becomes  the  duty  of  every  Christian  serh 
eusly  to  inquire  where  are  the  true  Priesthood^  and  the  valid 
ordinances  of  the  Church;  and  hence  the  present  publi- 
cation, which  furnishes  a  view  of  the  arguments  on  these 
important  topics,  may  be  justified.* 

The  present  publication  is  rendered  necessar}'  on 
another  account.  A  periodical  work,  entitled,  "  The 
Christian's  Magazine,"  has  been  for  some  time  announced. 
This  will  be  conducted  by  the  united  talents  of  the  re- 
pectable  body  of  anti-Episcopal  Clergy  in  the  city  of  New- 
York.  And  it  is  ascertained  that  they  have  been,  for  a 
long  time,  preparing  to  expose,  in  this  Miscellany,  what 
they  consider  the  erroneous  tenets  of  Episcopalians  on  the 
constitution  of  the  Christian  Church.  With  a  knowledge 
of  this  circumstance,  it  would  be  a  dereliction  of  duty  in 
those  who  believe  Episcopacy  was  the  originally  and  di- 
vinely constituted  mode  of  conveying  and  perpetuating 
the  ministerial  commission,  to  remain  inactive.  In  the 
present  publication,  the  arguments  for  and  against  Epis- 
copacy are  presented  to  the  reader ;  and  he  has  thus  a  fair 
opportunity  of  judging  of  the  merits  of  this  important 
question. 

•  Potter  on  Church  Governinent,  and  the  tracts  on  the  same  subject  in 
the  Scholar  Armed,  viz.  Leslie  on  the  ^alijications  to  administer  the  Sacra- 
ments, and  Lavi^s  three  Letters  to  the  Bishop  of  Bangor,  contain  the  sub- 
stance of  the  arguments  in  favour  of  Episcopacy.  The  anti-Episcopal 
arguments  are  stated  by  Sir  Peter  King,  in  his  Inquiry  concerning  the 
Constitution,  &c.  of  the  Primitive  Church,  and  by  the  late  Dr.  Camp' 
bell,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  Lectures.  Tlie  former  book  was  answered,  it  is 
said,  to  the  conviction  of  Sir  Peter  King  himself,  by  Slater,  in  his  Ori- 
ginal Draught  of  the  Primitive  Church  ;  and  the  latter  book  by  Bishop 
Skinner  o£  Aberdeen,  in  h\s  Primitive  Truth  and  Order  Vindicated. 


PPEFACE.  vw 

The  imputation  of  uncharitableness  and  bigotry^  libe- 
rally applied  to  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy,  is  disclaimed 
as  equally  ungenerous  and  unjust.     The  same  imputatioa 
has  always  been  urged,  by  the  opponents  of  the  truths 
of-  Revelation,  against  the  advocates  of  these  truths.     It 
has  pleased  God  to  make  his  Church  the  channel  of  his 
covenanted  mercies  to  the  world.    Christians,  universally, 
for  fifteen  centuries,  considered  the  Priesthood,   in  the 
orders  of  Bishops^  Priests^  and  Deacons^  as  one  of  the 
essential  characteristics  of  the  Church;  and  considered 
the  reception  of  the  ordinances  administered  by  this  Priest- 
hood as  the  divinely  appointed  mode  of  entering  into  cove- 
pant  with  God.     But  though  the  institutions  of  the  Al- 
mighty are  indispensably  binding  upon  men,  he  is  not 
himself  restricted  by  them.     Every  benevolent  hearty 
therefore,   ardently  cherislies   the  delightful  belief,  that 
mercy  will  at  length  be  extended  to  ail  who  humbly  and 
earnestly  seek  to  know  and  to  do  the  will  of  their  hea- 
venly Master.     In  the  sincerity  of  his  soul,  the  writer 
can  adopt  and  cherish  the  sentiments  avowed  by  a  dis- 
tinguished Prelate ;  vfho  still  honours  and  promotes  by  his 
jerudition  and  talents,  tlie  cause  of  science  and  religion ; 
and  who,  for  his  zealous  defence  of  primitive  faith  and 
order,  has  been  frequently  branded  with  the  charges  of 
intolerance  and  bigotry-.* 

"  Though  truth  in  these  controversies  can  be 
only  on  one  side;  he  will  indulge,  and  he  will 
avow,  the  charitable  opinion  that  sincerity  may 

BE  ON   BOTH.       AnD    HE    WILL    ENJOY*  THE .  REFLECTION, 

•  Bishop  Horsley.  See  his  Charge  to  his  Clergy,  while  Archdeacon 
of  St.  Albaa's,  in  defence  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  against  Dr.  Priest- 
ley. 


viii  PREFACE. 

THAT,  BY  AN  EQUAL  SINCERITY,  THROUGH  THE  POWER 
OF  THAT  BLOOD  WHICH  WAS  SHED  EQUALLY  FOR  ALL, 
BOTH  PARTIES  MAY  AT  LENGTH  FIND  EQUAL  MERCY. 
In  THE  TRANSPORT  OF  THIS  HOLY  HOPE,  HE  WILL  AN- 
TICIPATE THAT  GLORIOUS  CONSUMMATION,  WHEN  FAITH 
SHALL  BE  ABSORBED  IN  KNOWLEDGE,  AND  THE  FIRE  OT 
CONTROVERSY  FOR  EVER  QUENCHED.  WhEN  THE  SAME 
GENEROUS  ZEAL  FOR  GOD  AND  TrUTH,  WHICH  TOO 
OFTEN,  IN  THIS  WORLD  OF  FOLLY  AND  CONFUSION,  SETS 
THOSE  AT  WIDEST  VARIANCE  WHOM  THE  SIMILITUDE  OF 
VIRTUOUS  FEELINGS  SHOULD  THE  MOST  UNITE,  SHALL 
:BE  the  CEMENT  OF  AN  INDISSOLUBLE  FRIENDSHIP; 
■WHEN  THE  INNUMERABLE  MULTITUDE  OF  ALL  NATIONS, 
KINDREDS,  AND  PEOPLE,  (wHY  SHOULD  I  NOT  ADD  OF  ALL 
SECTS  AND  PARTIES?)  ASSEMBLED  ROUND  THE  THRONE, 
SHALL,  LIKE  THE  FIRST  CHRISTIANS,  BE  OF  ONE  SOUL, 
AND  ONE  MIND;  GIVING  PRAISE  WITH  ONE  CONSENT  TO 
Him    THAT    SITTETH    ON    THE    THRONE,    AND    TO    THE 

Lamb  that  was  slain  to  redeem  them   by  his 

BLOOD." 

J.  H.  HOBART. 

Ncxv-7'orkj  February i  1806. 


F&r  the  Jtlbmy  CentineL 
MISCELLANIES.    No.  IX. 


I 


N  the  course  of  these  numbers  I  shall  devote  one,  now  and  then, 
to  the  subject  of  Church  Government.  Some  may  think  that  this 
promises  little  entertainment;  that  it  has  been,  in  former  times, 
amply  discussed ;  and  that  no  doubt  can  remain  in  the  minds  of 
any  who  are  at  the  pains  to  read  and  to  judge  for  themselves.  But, 
from  the  different  forms  which  are  found  in  this  countiy,  and  fron> 
publications  which  have  been  lately  made,  it  seems  that  a  diversity 
of  opinion  still  exists.  Bigotry,  superstition,  and  old  prejudices 
are  not  easily  and  suddenly  destroyed.  If  no  benefit  should  arise 
from  a  few  sti'ictures,  no  evil  is  foreseen,  and  no  good  reason  can 
be  given,  why  "  the  unity  of  the  spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace"  may 
not  be  preserved. 

As  the  Classical  or  Presbyterlal  form  of  Church  Government  is 
the  true  and  only  one  which  Christ  hath  prescribed  in  his  word,* 
so  it  is  the  best  adapted  to  the  temper  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  and  the  most  conformable  to  their  institutions  of  civil  go- 
vernment. The  Episcopalians  appear  to  have  been  sensible  of  this 
in  aiTanging  their  ecclesiastical  code.f  In  the  preface  to  the  book 
of  Common  Prayer,  which  was  ratified  by  a  convention  in  1789, 
they  point  out  the  necessary  alterations  made  in  their  public  ser- 
vice, and  declare  as  follows  :  "  When  in  the  course  of  divine  Pro- 
vidence, these  American  States  became  independent  with  respect 
to  civil  government,  their  Ecclesiastical  Independence  was  neces- 
sarily included,  and  the  different  religious  denominations  of  Chris- 
tians in  these  States  were  left  at  full  and  equal  lii^erty  to  model  and 
organize  their  respective  Churches  and  forms  of  worship  and  dis- 
cipline, in  such  manner  as  they  might  judge  most  convenient  for 
their  future  prosperity,  consisteatl)^  with  the  constitution  and  laws 
of  their  country." 

Episcopacy  here  is  not  such  as  is  established  in  Great-Bi'itain, 
but  approaches  a  little  nearer  to  what  has  the  fairest  claim  to  a  di- 

*  Let  the  reader  take  particular  notice  of  this  assertioa  with  which  the 
Author  of  Miscellanies  commences  his  attack  tipon  Episcopacy.  He 
does  not  hesitate  to  assert,  that  "  the  Classical  or  Presbyterial  form  of 
Church  Government  is  the  true  and  only  one  which  Christ  hath  prescribed 
in  his  word."  And  yet  the  reader  will  soon  find  that  it  is  the  subject  of 
bitter  complaint,  that  some  Episcopalians,  in  unison  witli  the  faith  of  pri- 
mitive ages,  have  presumed  to  think  that  Episcopacy  was  instituted  by 
Christ  and  his  Apostles.  Editor. 

f  Episcopalians  were  indeed  fully  sensible  that  a /jr/m/in'e  Episcopacy, 
stripped  of  tliose  adventitious  appendages  which  in  some  nations  are  con- 
nected with  it,  was  not  only  •'  adapted  to  the  temper  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States,"  but  "  the  most  conformable  to  their  institutions  of  civii 
government."  And  tl.e  reader  will  see  this  point  ably  proved  by  Cyprian, 
and  by  tbe  Layman.  Ed. 


'J  MISCELLANIES.    No.  IX. 

vine  right.  The  formerly  pretended  uninterrufited  line  of  suedes-^ 
xio7i  from  the  Apostles,  the  pompous  array  of  dignitaries  in  the 
Church,  and  the  conferring  upon  them  civil  offices,  serve  their  pur- 
poses under  JSIonarchies:  in  this  country  th6y  have  passed,  except 
with  a  few  fanatics,  as  a  tale  that  has  been  told,  or  like  "  a  vapoui* 
they  have  vanished  away."  There  is  not  one  spiritual  lord  in  the 
United  States  resembling  those  in  the  British  empire.* 

By  Episcopalians  I  mean  those  who  sprung  from  the  established 
Caurch  in  England,  and  have  formed  their  constitution  on  that  mo- 
del. They  have  assumed  here  the  title  of  "  the  Protestant  Episco- 
jjal  Church,"  and  are  thus  distinguished  from  the  other  sects  of 
Christians,  particularly  from  the  Roman  Episcopal  Church.  By 
Presbyterians  I  mean  those  who,  in  their  Church  Government, 
folloAv  the  plan  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  of  Holland,  and  of  almost 
all  the  foreign  Protestant  Churches.  Were  the  derivation  of  the 
■word  Efiiscojiallan  explained,  it  would  be  seen  that  it  belongs  as 
much  to  others  as  tliose  who  have  assumed  it ;  but  it  is  used,  at  pre- 
sent, for  the  sake  of  distinction.  While  the  greater  part  of  pro- 
fessing Chi'istians  are  known  by  the  term  Presbyterian,!  the 
Churches  of  Rome  and  of  England  are  as  well  knov/n  by  the  term 
Episcopalian.  Some  of  the  points  of  difference  are  more  in  name 
than  in  reality.  The  Presbyterians  have  their  Sessions  or  Con- 
aiaicries^  their  Presbyteries  or  Classes,  their  particular  Synods, 
their  General  Sy?iod  or  Ge?ieral  Assernbly.  The  Episcopalians 
have  their  Church  Wardens,  their  Vestries,  their  State  Convene 
tions,  and  their  General  Convention.  The  Presbyterians  have 
their  Standards  of  Doctrine  and  Directories  for  public  worship,  the 
Episcopalians  their  Articles  and  Liturgy.  The  Presbyterians  have 
their  Bishops,  commonly  called  Pastors  or  Ministers  of  the  word, 
and  their  candidates ;  to  the  former  of  the  two  orders,  Bishops,  and 
Presbyters  or  Priests  or  Ministers,  correspond  among  the  Episco- 
palians, and  to  the  latter  their  Deacons.  In  both  Churches,  the 
former  have  full  power  to  administer  the  sacraments ;  and  in  both, 
the  latter  have  not,  being  considered  only  as  Probationers. \ 

*  How  unworthy  of  a  candid  writer  is  this  attempt,  at  the  outset  of  his 
remarks,  to  prejudice  the  minds  of  his  readers  against  Episcopacy,  by 
connecting  it  witii  the  cause  of  monarchy.  Does  not  this  writer  know 
that  the  ttmpofai  and  spiritual  powers  of  the  EngHsh  Bishops  are  totally 
distinct,  and  are  in  no  respect  necessarily  connected  ?  Does  he  not  know- 
that  a  primiti'iie  Episcopacy,  such  as  now  exists  in  the  United  States, 
flourished  for  three  hundred  years  under  the  frowns  of  the  civii  powers  when 
tlieBiihops,  so  far  from  enjoying  teniporal  honours,  were  the  constant 
marks  tor  the  arrows  of  bitter  and  vengeful  persecution  ?  Jid. 

•]•  So  far  from  the  greater  part  of  professing  Christians  being  Presbyte- 
rian, the  Presbyterians,  in  proportion  to  those  who  are  Ejiiscopal,  form 
bu:  a  small  number.  The  whole  eastern  Cbiircb  is  Episcopal,  and  by  far  the 
greater  part  of  the  ivestern.  The  Presbyterians  sprung  u]i  at  Geneva  in 
tiie  sixteenth  cetitury,  and  constitute  the  inferior  number  among  Protest- 
ants. _  Ed. 

\  Deacons  in  the  Episcopal  Church  are  more  than  Probstioners.  Tlacy 
are,  in  a  qualified  sense,  Ministers  of  the  word  and  sacraments.  They 
liave  the  power  of  administering  baptism,  and  are  allowed  to  jjreach.  Ac- 
cordingly, us  Ministers,  tliey  tac  ordained  by  uiipobiticn  of  hands.     'I'hey 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  IX.  S 

There  arc,  however,  some  things  in  which  the  Episcopalians 
have  deviated  from  the  exact  classical  form,  either  through  inat- 
tention to  the  scriptures,  tlie  only  sure  guide,  or  (what  charity  is 
unwilling  to  suppose)  through  a  fondness  of  singularity,  and  of  su- 
periority over  their  brethren.*  The  latter  cause  is  the  less  to  be 
suspected,  because  they  declare,  in  Article  XX.  "  It  is  not  lawful  for 
tlie  Church  to  order  any  thing  that  is  contrary  to  God's  word  writ- 
ten." Here  they  profess  to  take  the  writteJi  word  of  God  for  their 
rule.  In  this  the  Presbyterians  heartily  agree  with  them,  and  the 
only  difference  is,  that  one  denomination  have  found  what  the  other, 
after  the  most  diligent  research,  have  never  been  able  to  discover.! 

The  Episcopalians  apply  the  name  Bishofi  exclusively  to  certain 
persons,  and  hold  the  office  to  be  superior  to  that  of  other  Ministers 
of  the  word,  having  peculiar  privileges  and  duties  annexed  to  it. 
Tliis  distinction  is  prominent  in  their  government,  and  in  their 
Liturgy.  When  they  meet  in  General  Convention,  there  is  the 
"  House  of  Bishops"  distinct  from  the  "House  of  Clerical  and  Lav 
Deputies."  Canon  I.  passed  1789, runs  thus:  "In  this  Church  there 
shall  always  be  three  orders  in  the  Ministry,  viz.  Bishops,  Priests, 
and  Deacons."  Their  prayers  are  for  "  Bishops  and  other  Clergy" 
-.—for  "  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons" — and  some  parts  of  the  ser- 
vice may  not  be  performed  by  a  Priest,  if  the  Bishop  be  present. 
All  the  Clergy  in  a  diocese  or  district  are  subordinate  to  him.  He 
is,  from  his  office.  President  of  the  State  Convention ;  dispenses 
solely  what  they  call  "  the  Apostolic  Rite  of  Confirmation  ;"  con- 
secrates Churches ;  administers  censures ;  and  there  can  be  no  or- 
dination without  him.  To  make  one  of  these  diocesan  Bishops,  is 
deemed  to  be  a  work  of  such  magnitude,  as  to  require  the  presence 
and  exertion  of  three  others. 

The  Presbyterians  cannot  see  where  these  things  are  rjritten ; 
and  the  Episcopalians,  in  order  mercifully  to  open  the  eyes  of  the 
blind,  reject  Presbyterian  ordination,  so  that  whoever  v/ould  join 
the  Episcopal  Church  must  be  anointed  from  the  horn  of  their 
Bishop,  though  he  had  received  before  a  sort  of  ordination  by  "  the 
lajing  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery."  Examples  cf  this  have 
occurred  in  the  State  of  New-York.  In  one  case,  a  Minister  was 
persuaded  not  only  to  renounce  his  former  ordination,  but  to  be- 
lieve that  tlie  baptism  of  his  children  was  invalid  :  he  was  re-or- 
dained by  a  Bishop  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  his  children  were 
re-baptized.  I  mention  this  fact  to  show  the  sentiments  which  ai-e 
held  by  the  Episcopalians  and  the  Roman  Catholics.  Tiie  lattt-r  of 
these  sects,  though  consistent,  yet  may  be  thought  unneighbourly ; 
for  they  would  in  no  wi.se  admit  even  an  Archbishop  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church  into  theirs,  until  they  had  placed  a  mitre 
of  their  own  upon  his  iiead. 

cannot  indeed  cxereir,e  the  full  power  of  the  Priesthood,  the  consecration 
of  the  elements  in  the  Hoi)  Eiicharl  u,  and  the  pronouncing  of  the  declara- 
tion o5  absolution,  and  the  authoritative  benediction.  Ed. 

*  Charity  v/ould  have  spared  this  uncharitable  insinuation.   .  Ed. 

t  Might  it  not  with  more  propriety  have  been  said,  that  Episcopalians 
happily  retained  at  the  Reformation  that  apostolic  and  primitive  form  oi" 
Church  Government  which  some  Protestants  unhappily  discardt'd  ?    iV. 


(     4     > 

For  the  Alhany^  Cmiind* 

The  «  LAYMAN'S"  Defence  of  the  Church.    No.  I. 

V^HURCH  government  is  certainly  a  subject  of  deep  importance. 
It  has  received  the  merited  attention  of  the  most  enlightened  scho- 
lars. There  is  nothing  new  to  be  said  upon  it  at  this  day.  At  the 
same  time  I  know  not  that  those  are  to  be  censured  who  direct  their 
thoughts  to  this  subject,  with  the  view  of  submitting  them  to  public 
examination.  I  much  doubt,  however,  the  propriety  of  discussing 
such  matters  in  the  newspapers  of  the  day.  It  was  with  no  little 
surprise,  therefore,  that  I  read  the  strictures  of  a  late  writer  who 
has  devoted  one  of  his  miscellaneous  essays  to  the  nature  and  origin 
of  ecclesiastical  authority.  The  preceding  piece  being  on  the  sub- 
ject of  demagogues,  who  could  have  supposed  that  the  affair  of 
Church  Government  would  so  soon  be  brought  up?  Between  such 
a  topic  and  the  marks  by  which  a  demagogue  may  be  known,  there 
seems  to  be  no  very  intimate  connection.  The  author  of  the  stric- 
tures under  consideration  has  certainly  given  a  very  appi'opriate 
title  to  his  luerubations.  He  is  undoubtedly  a  miscellaneous 
writer. 

If  the  subject  of  ecclesiastical  authority  is  to  be  brought  before 
the  public,  let  it  be  done  in  a  dispassionate  and  systematic  man>- 
ner.  Can  it  be  proper  to  introduce  it  into  a  series  of  fugitive 
essays  on  the  topics  of  the  day,  or  to  mingle  it  with  loose,  polkical 
discussions  ?  This,  certainly,  is  the  way  to  deprive  the  subject  o£ 
that  high  dignity  which  it  undoubtedly  possesses,  and  to  excice  feel- 
ings little  favoui-able  to  the  discovery  of  truth.  After  the  regular 
and  profound  investigation  which  the  question  of  ecclesiastical  au- 
thority has  received,  can  a  loose  inquiry  of  this  kind  shed  any  light 
Hpon  it,  or  conduct  the  lovers  of  truth  to  a  just  decision  ?  Surely 
not. 

Impressed  as  I  am  with  the  truth  of  the  preceding  reflections, 
I  should,  nevertheless,  feel  myself  deficient  in  duty  in  suffering 
such  an  attack  upon  the  Episcopal  Church  to  pass  without  notice. 
It  is  calculated  to  operate  on  the  minds  of  the  ignorant.  I  believe 
the  motives  of  the  writer  to  have  been  pui-e.  I  have  long  known 
him,  and  have  long  felt  for  him  sincere  respect  and  esteem.  I 
lament  that  he  has  imbibed  so  strong  a  prepossession  against  the 
Church;  still  move  that  he  has  permitted  himself  to  attack  it  in  a 
Mianner  which  will  not,  1  presume,  be  justified  by  his  warmest 
friends.  Many  will,  doubtless,  read  liis  piece  who  have  never  seen 
any  thing  on  the  subject  of  ecclesiastical  government.  It  is  this 
consideration  alone  that  induces  me  to  enter  upon  the  disagreeable 
task  of  addressing  the  public  in  a  way  so  little  consistent  with  what 
I  have  thought  the  proper  mode  of  calling  the  attention  of  men  to 
matters  of  this  nature. 

T'he  Episcopal  Church  asks  ouly  a  dispassionate  hearing.  Slie 
invites  those  who  are  so  strongly  opposed  to  her,  to  lay  aside  pre- 
conceived opinior/i  for  a  moment,  and  to  inquire  into  her  govern- 
ment, her  worship,  and  her  discipline,  apart,  as  much  as  possible, 
from  that  dislike  to  her  which  education  may  have  implanted  in 


LAYMAN.    No.  I.  5 

their  minds.  The  zeal  against  her  she  sincerely  believes  to  be  the 
result  of  a  want  of  acquaintance  witli  her  institutions  and  services. 
Could  this  difficulty  be  removed,  she  fondly  ii>duiges  the  belief  that 
multitudes  would  flock  to  her  communion,  and  that  thos-e  who  ought 
never  to  have  been  separated  from  lier  would  return  with  joy  to 
her  bosom. 

It  is  by  no  means  my  design  to  go  into  a  regular  examination  of 
the  subject  in  question.  This  is  fur  from  being  the  proper  mode; 
nor  do  I  feel  myself  competent  to  the  undertaking.  Be  it  my  task, 
to  notice,  as  briefly  as  possible,  the  observations  under  considera- 
tion, presenting  simply  thohe  ideas  tliat  may  be  necessary  to  correct 
the  errors  into  which  (what  I  sincerely  think)  a.  most  partial  and 
unfair  view  of  the  subject  seems  calculated  to  lead. 

The  Episcopal  Church  has  a  right  to  complain  of  the  uncha- 
ritable manner  in  which  this  writer  treats  her.  She  perceives 
in  his  piece  a  style  and  a  spirit  that  appear  to  her  litt.e  conge- 
nial with  a  sincere  desire  of 'appealing  only  to  the  understanding 
of  his  readers.  If  on  any  question  the  judgment  alone  ought  to 
be  addressed,  this  surely  is  that  question.  Any  remarks  calcu- 
lated to  excite  animosity  should  be  most  carefully  avoided.  Has 
the  writer  under  consideration  conducted  in  this  manner  ?  Why 
does  he  attribute  the  attachment  of  Episcopalians  to  the  princi-r 
pies  which  distinguish  tl^eir  Church  to  prejudice,  suJierstui&Uy 
and  bigotry  ?  Why  does  he  represent  the  important  doctrine  of 
an  uninterrupted  succession  from  the  Apostles  to  Avhicli  the  Epis- 
copal Church  subscribes,  as  a /"o/e  in  which  none  but  a  fcwya^w- 
tics  believe  ?  Why  does  he  talk  of  tlic  necessity  of  anointing 
Ministers  from  the  horn  of  the  Binhofi,  or  represent  Episcopa- 
lians as  PROFESSING  to  take  the  written  word  of  God  ior  their 
rule  ?  Such  language  is  surely  unjustifiable.  The  writer  in  ques- 
tion cannot  subscribe  to  the  doctrines  and  government  of  the 
Episcopal  Church.  She  has  the  misfortune  to  differ  from  him  in 
opinion.  But  has  he  any  right  to  ridicule  her  institutions,  or  to 
charge  her  with  fanaticism  and  bigotry  ?  Is  it  in  this  way  that  a 
love  of  truth  is  to  be  excited,  or  the  minds  of  men  prepared  to  dis- 
cover or  embrace  it  ?  No.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  intention 
of  the  writer,  such  language  is  calculated  only  to  sour  the  feelings, 
and  to  pervert  the  judgment.  It  is  unworthy  of  the  cause  of  truth, 
and  every  friend  of  virtue  ought  to  set  on  it  the  stamp  of  his  most 
decided  i-eprobation.  I  ha\e  too  good  an  opinion  of  the  writer  to 
believe  that  he  chci-ishes  in  his  heart  those  feelings  that  his  language 
is  calculated  to  inspii-c  in  the  hearts  of  others.  He  lias  expressed 
himself  inadvertently,  and  I  persuade  myself  he  will,  in  his  cool 
moments,  regret  what  he  has  done.  , 

Let  us  proceed  to  notice  the  matter  of  this  address.  "  While 
the  greater  part  of  professing  Cliristians  are  known  I)y  the  term 
Presbyterian,  tlie  Churches  of  Rome  and  lingland  are  as  well 
known  by  the  term  Episcopalian."  I  must  be  permitted  to  say 
that  this  is  a  wide  departure  from  fact.  \W  K/iisco/iacy  is  nieant 
the  necessity  of  distinct  orders  in  the  Ministry;  the  highest  order 
possessing  alone  that  power  of  ordination  by  which  the  sacerdotal 
authority  is  conveyed.  Now,  the  whole  Christian  world  is  Epis- 
copal, except  a  few  dissenters,  who,  within  two  or  tlirec  hundred 


S  LAYMAN.    No.  I. 

years,  have  arisen  in  the  western  Church.  There  are  supposed 
to  be  two  hundred  and  twenty  millions  of  Christians  in  the  world ; 
of  which  fifty  millions  are  Protestants,  eighty  millions  are  of  the 
Greek  and  Armenian  Churches,  ninety  millions  of  the  Romish 
communion.  The  Greek  and  Armenian  Churches  are  entii-ely 
Episcopal;  so  also  are  those  of  the  Romish  persuasion.  The  Pro- 
testants are  very  much  divided.  Episcopacy  exists  in  the  Pro- 
testant Church  in  Denmark,  Prussia,  Sweden,  Norway,  and,  with 
a  little  exception,  in  Great-Britain  and  Ireland.  All  the  Lutheran 
Churches  in  Germany  are  Episcopal,*  The  dissenters  from 
Episcopacy  bear  no  sort  of  proportion  to  those  who  adhere  to  it. 
They  are  confined  to  the  western  Church,  and  there  their  number 
is  comparatively  very  small.  Will  it  be  said  we  ought  not  to  cal- 
culate on  the  Romish  Church,  since  she  asserts  the  supremacy  of 
the  Pope  ?  Nevertheless  that  Church  contends  for  distinct  orders 
in  the  Ministry,  and  admits  the  validity  of  Episcopal  ordination. 
But  let  the  Roman  Catholics  be  struck  entirely  out  of  the  calcula- 
tion. Tlie  advocates  of  parity  constitute  but  a  very  trifling  propor- 
tion of  the  remaining  part  of  the  Christian  world.    These  ai'e  facts. 

I  cannot  help  taking  notice,  also,  of  the  manner  in  Vv'hich  this 
writer  makes  use  of  a  passage  of  scripture,  upon  which  the  advo- 
cates of  parity  place  much  reliance.  In  the  first  Epistle  to  Timothy, 
fourth  chapter,  and  fourteenth  verse,  St.  Paul  says,  "  Neglect  not 
the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  WITH 
the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery."  It  is  to  the  passage 
•which  follows  that  I  object.  "  The  Presbyterians  cannot  see  where 
these  things  are  written  ;  and  the  Episcopalians,  in  order  mercifully 
to  open  the  eyes  of  the  blind,  reject  Presbyterian  ordination ;  so  that 
whoever  would  join  the  Episcopal  Church,  must  be  anointed  from 
the  horn  of  their  Bishop,  though  he  had  received  before  a  sort  of 
ordination  BY  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery."  The 
passage  of  scripture,  correctly  stated,  is  "  WITH  the  laying  on  of 
the  hands  of  the  Presb}lery."  Our  author  has  it,  "  BY  the  laying 
on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery."  The  important  word  WITH 
is  entirely  omitted,  and  the  word  BY  substituted  in  it's  place.  True, 
the  word  BY  is  not  included  in  the  crotchets ;  but  the  word  WITH 
is  omitted,  and  the  word  BY  placed  immediately  before  the  pas- 
sage, so  as  materially  to  affect  ihe  sense.  Of  this  I  complain.  In 
order  to  show  the  unfairness  of  the  thing,  I  must  beg  the  attention 
of  the  reader  to  a  few  observations. 

"  Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by 
prophecy,  WITH  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery. " 
So  says  St.  Paul  in  his  first  P2pistle  to  Timothy — "  Wherefore  I  put 
thee  in  remembrance,  that  thou  stir  up  the  gift  of  God  which  is  in 
thee,  BY  the  putting  on  of  my  hands."  Such  is  the  language  of  the 
second  Epistle  to  Timothy. 

If  we  would  arrive  at  a  just  interpretation  of  scripture,  we  must 
view  all  the  parts  of  it  in  connection.  This  is  a  dictate  of  common 
sense.  The  two  passages  in  the  Epistles  to  Timothy  must,  therefore, 
be  taken  together ;  and  such  a  construction  given  them  that  both 
may  stand. 

*  But  fov.-  of  the  Protestants  of  Pruesla  &«d  Germapv  arc  Episcopal.    Ed. 


LAYMAN.    No.  I.  7 

"  The  gift  of  God  which  is  in  thee,  BY  the  putting  on  of  my 
hands."  St.  Paul,  tlien,  imposed  hands  on  Timothy ;  and  by  this 
imposition  Timothy  received  his  power.  The  Greek  word  here 
used,  is  dia  ;  and  it  signifies  the  means  bxj  which  authority  was  con- 
veyed. "  The  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy, 
WITH  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery."  Hei-e  the 
mode  of  expression  is  different.  Timothy  received  his  power  BY 
the  laying  on  of  Paul's  hands,  WITH  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 
the  Presbytery.  St.  Paul  conveyed  the  power,  while  the  Presby- 
tery expressed  approbation. — The  Greek  word  here  used  is  meta^ 
which  sig-nifies  nothing  more  than  concurrence,  not  at  all  designating 
the  conveyance  of  authority.  What  is  the  practice  of  the  Episco- 
pal Church  ?  The  Presbyters  lay  their  hands  on  with  the  Bishop  ; 
so  that  every  Minister  receives  his  ordination  by  the  laying  on  of 
the  hands  of  the  Bishop,  w/VA  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  Pres- 
byters. 

The  reader  is,  I  trust,  convinced  of  the  importance  of  the  words 
by  and  nuilh^  in  this  case.  Was  it  fair,  then,  to  give  the  passage 
from  the  first  Epistle  to  Timothy  in  a  mutilated  state  ?  Ought  the 
word  ivith  to  have  been  omitted,  and  the  v/ord  by  so  situated  as  to 
give  a  sense  to  the  passage  which  it  will  not  bear  ?  True,  the  re- 
mark is  made  in  an  incidental  way;  but  that  does  not  exonei'ate 
the  writer  from  the  obligation  of  a  strict  adherence  to  accuracy.  It 
is  to  be  recollected,  too,  that  the  passage  of  scripture  thus  dealt 
with,  is  one  on  which  the  advocates  of  parity  have  relied.  I  com- 
plain then  here  of  unjust  treatment ;  and  I  feel  strongly  disposed 
to  suspect  weakness  in  a  cause  v/hen  I  find  such  expedients  em- 
ployed to  defend  it. 

Thus  much  I  have  thought  proper  to  say,  for  the  purpose  of 
placing  the  passage  from  the  first  Epistle  to  Tiniothy  in  its  true 
light.  But  it  may  not  be  unprofitable,  before  dismissing  this  part 
of  the  subject,  to  make  such  further  observations  as  may  be  appli- 
cable to  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  akhough  not  particularly  called  for 
by  any  thing  in  the  strictures  which  have  given  rise  to  this  address. 

"  By  the  putting  on  of  my  hands."  "  With  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  Presbytery."  These  are  the  two  passages.  It  is  not 
at  all  improbable  that  the  Presbytery  here  spoken  of,  were  some 
of  the  Apostles  themselves,  who  laid  their  hands  on  Timothy,  iu 
connection  with  Paul.  I'he  term  Presbuttrus^  in  its  general  im- 
port, signifies  a  Church  Governor ;  and,  of  coui'se,  although  or- 
dinarily appropriated  in  the  New  Testament  to  the  second  grade 
of  Ministers,  it  is  capable  of  being  applied  to  all  the  grades.  The 
Apostles  call  themselves  Presbyters.  Well,  then,  the  term  Pres- 
bulero.^  being  applicable  to  all  the  orders,  and  the  Apostles  occa- 
sionally applying  it  to  themselves,  it  is  at  least  probable  that  the 
Presbytery  spoken  of  by  Paul  were  Apostles.  At  all  events,  it 
cannot  be  pi-oved  that  they  v/ere  mere  Elders.  And  when  we  go 
to  ecclesiastical  history,  we  find  that  the  practice  of  Presbyters 
uniting  with  Bishops  in  the  imposition  of  hands,  was  not  introduced 
until  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  century.  In  the  Greek  Church, 
indeed,  it  has  never  prevailed.  These  circumstances  render  it  ex- 
tremely prohaljle  that  the  Presbyters,  who,  with  Paul,  imposed 
hands  upon  Timothy,  were  really  and  truly  Apostlec.     But  let  h 


«  LAYMAN.    No.  I. 

be  conceded  to  the  enemies  of  Episcopacy,  that  they  were  nothing 
more  than  Elders.  The  concession  will  avail  them  nothing ;  for 
Paul  was  an  Apostle,  and  superior  to  the  order  of  mere  Presbyters, 
Ke  imposed  hands  on  Timotliy,  and  by  such  imposition,  the  sacer- 
dotal power  was  conveyed.  Elders  alone  therefore,  upon  the  most 
indulgent  supposition,  cannot  ordain.  The  presence  of  a  superior 
order  is  necessary.  In  what  then  does  this  passage  avail  the  ad- 
vocates of  parity  ? 

Here  the  subject  seems  naturally  to  call  for  a  few  obsei'vations  on 
that  promiscuous  use  of  the  terms  Elder^  Bishofi^  Presbyter,  on 
■which  the  opposers  of  Episcopacy  place  so  much  reliance.  The 
fair  inquiry,  certainly,  is  as  to  the  orders  of  Ministers  which  ex- 
isted in  the  Church  in  the  Apostolic  age,  and  the  ages  immedi- 
ately succeeding  ;  not  as  to  the  particular  titles  of  office  that  were 
used  at  different  periods.  Names  frequently  change  their  signifi- 
cation ;  and,  even  in  the  same  period  are  sometimes  used  to  de- 
note one  thing,  and  sometimes  another,  according  to  the  manner  in 
whicii  tlie)^  are  applied.  Presbuteros  signifies  a  Church  Governor, 
or  it  signifies  an  Elder  or  grave  man.  Accordingly,  as  has  been 
remarked  above,  the  Apostles  applied  the  name  occasionally  to 
themselves.  ^/^/sA-o^os  signifies  an  overseer.  Every  Bishop  is  over- 
seer of  his  diocese,  and  every  Presbyter  of  his  particular  flock. 

The  Apostles  then  arc  called  Presbyters.  This  proves  conclu- 
sively that  no  argument  can  be  drawn  by  the  advocates  of  parity, 
from  the  promiscuous  use  of  the  terms  Presbyter,  Bishop,  in  the 
sacred  writings.  If  it  proves  that  there  is  now  but  one  order  in  the 
Ministry,  it  proves  equally  that  Paul  was  upon  a  perfect  level  with 
the  Elders  of  Ephesus. 

In  Roman  history  we  find  the  term  Imf levator  at  one  period  ap- 
plied to  designate  a  General  of  an  army  ;  at  another,  a  Magistrate 
clothed  with  unlimited  civil  and  military  authority.  Suppose  we 
should  be  told  that  every  General  of  an  army  was  Emperor  of 
Rome,  and  that  the  Emperor  of  Rome  was  merely  General  of  an 
army ;  what  would  be  the  reply  ?  That  the  term  Imperator  had 
changed  its  signification.  And  how  would  this  be  proved  ?  By  the 
Roman  history,  which  shows  us,  that  the  Emperors  had  Generals 
under  them,  over  whom  they  exercised  authority.  Apply  this  rea- 
soning to  the  case  under  consideration.  The  terms  Bishop,  Presby- 
ter, ai-e  used  piximiscuously  in  the  New  Testament.  Therefore, 
say  the  advocates  of  parity,  they  designated  the  same  office  in  the 
ages  subsequent  to  the  age  of  the  Apostles.  Is  this  a  logical  con- 
clusion ?  Surely  not.  Names  change  their  signification.  Ecclesi- 
astical history  tells  us,  and  the  most  learned  advocates  of  parity 
have  admitted  the  fact,  that  the  oi*der  of  Bishops  existed  in  the 
Chvirch  as  distinct  from,  and  superior  to  the  order  of  Presbyters, 
within  forty  or  fifty  )ears  after  the  last  of  the  Apostles.  The  Bi- 
shops then  liad  Pi-esbyters  under  tliem,  over  whom  they  exercised 
authority.  The  offices  were  disiinct  from  the  beginning ;  Bishops 
being  the  successors,  not  of  those  wlio  are  promiscuously  called 
Bis/io/i.i,  Presbyters^  F.ldcr.^,  in  tlie  New  Testament,  but  of  the 
Apostles  themselves.  Thcodorct  tells  us  expressly,  "  that  in  pro- 
cess of  time  tliose  who  succeeded  to  tlie  Apostolic  office  left  the 
nanic  of  Apostle  to  the  AjiostleSj  strictly  so  called,  and  gave  the 


LAYMAN.    No.  I.  9 

name  of  Bishop  to  those  who  succeeded  to  the  Apostolic  office."  No 
argument  then  can  be  founded  on  the  promiscuous  use  of  namesi 
This  mode  of  reasoning  pro^'es  too  much,  destroying  itself  by  the 
extent  of  the  consequences  which  it  draws  after  it.  If  it  deprive 
the  Bishops  of  their  superiority  over  Presbyters,  it  equally  deprives 
the  Apostles  of  their  superiority  over  Elders.  An  argument  which 
leads  to  false  conclusions,  must  itself  be  false. 

I  have  said  that  the  question  is  as  to  the  orders  of  Ministers 
which  were  established  in  the  Church.  Let  this  question  be  deter- 
mined by  the  sacred  writings.  The  case  of  the  seven  Angels  of  Asia, 
the  case  of  Timothy,  the  case  of  Titus,  the  case  of  Epaphroditus,  the 
case  of  St.  James,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  all  show  that  distinct  orders 
of  Ministers  were  established  in  the  Church  by  the  Apostles  them- 
selves. I  should  trespass  too  long  on  the  patience  of  the  reader  in 
going  through  these  cases.  Let  it  snffice  to  examine  the  situation  of 
the  Church  of  Ephesus.  Of  this  Church  Timothy  was  the  Governor. 
Both  Clergy  and  Laity  were  subject  to  his  spiritual  jurisdiction. 
"  Against  an  Elder  receive  not  an  accusation,  but  before  two  or 
three  witnesses."  "  And  I  besought  thee  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus, 
that  thou  mightest  charge  some  that  they  teach  no  strange  doc- 
trines." Did  the  Presbyterian  plan  of  government  exist  then  in 
the  Church  of  Ephesus  ?  Surely  not.  Was  Timothy  on  a  perfect 
level  with  the  Elders  or  Presbyters  ?  No.  He  exercised  authority 
over  them.  They  were  subject  to  his  control.  I  have  sometimes 
heard  It  said  that  Timothy  was  only  jirimus  inter  pares.  Very 
■well — Give  our  Bishop  the  same  power  over  the  other  Clergy  that 
was  exercised  by  Timothy,  and  we  shall  not  contend  about  a  word. 
Let  him  be  csAXtd  firimua  inter  paret,  or  by  any  other  name. 

The  writer  in  question  ridicules  the  idea  of  an  uninterrupted  suc- 
cession from  the  Apostles,  calling  it  a  tale  which  obtains  currency 
only  among  fanatics.  This  is  strange  language  to  apply  to  a  prin- 
ciple susceptible  of  the  strictest  demonstfatioft.  All  power  in  the 
Church  is  derived  from  Christ.  The  Apostles  received  their  com- 
mission from  him  immediately.  He  delivered  it  to  them  in  person. 
But  this  was  the  case  with  the  Apostles  alone.  How,  then,  did  the 
succeeding  Clergy  obtain  their  authority?  They  derived  it  from 
Christ.  But  our  Saviour  did  not  personally  give  it  to  them.  He 
sent  the  Apostles  with  power  to  send  others,  and  thus  an  uninter- 
rupted succession  has  been  kept  up.  All  succeeding  Clergymen 
then  derived  their  authority  from  Christ  through  the  medium  of 
others.  In  fact,  it  is  impossible  that  there  should  be  any  power,  ex- 
cept that  of  the  Apostles,  which  has  not  been  transmitted  through 
the  medium  of  men  authorized  to  qualify  others.  The  truth  is,  this 
idea  of  uninterrupted  succession  is  as  necessary  to  the  Presbyte- 
rians as  to  us.  Why  then  are  they  so  opposed  to  it  ?  It  is,  that 
not  a  single  Presbyter  in  the  world  can  trace  his  succession  up  to 
the  Apostles ;  while,  among  Bishops,  it  is  a  vehy  common  and  easy 
thing.  The  chronology  of  the  Church  has  been  computed,  in  the 
succession  of  the  Bishops,  its  chief  officers;  not  in  that  of  Presby- 
ters, who  are  of  a  subordinate  grade :  Just  as  the  chronology  of  a 
city  is  computed  by  the  succession  of  its  Mayors;  not  by  that  of  its 
Bailiffij.  Nothing  improper  is  intended  by  this  comparison.  It  ia 
purely  for  the  sake  of  illustration. 

C 


io  Layman.  No.  i. 

This  writer  declaims  on  the  subject  of  the  civil  dignities,  coh" 
nectcd  vvith  the  Church  of  England,  and  attempts  to  confound  them 
with  Eiiiscofmcij,  This  really  appears  to  me  to  be  uncandid ;  nor 
can  it,  I  think,  promote  those  dispositions  in  the  public  mind  which 
are  most  favourable  to  the  discovery  of  truth.  Efiiscofiacy  is  here 
precisely  what  it  is  in  Great-Britain ;  that  is,  in  the  Church  of 
England,  and  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United 
States,  there  are  three  distinct  orders  in  the  Ministry,  the  highest 
of  these  alone  possessing  the  power  of  ordination.  The  only  differ- 
ence is,  that  in  Great-Britain  the  Episcopal  Church  is  established, 
and  its  prelates  rendered  important  members  of  the  State.  Into 
the  wisdom  of  all  this  I  shall  not  pretend  to  inquire.  The  civil  dig- 
nities constitute  no  part  of  the  government  of  the  Church.  They 
are  a  mere  adjunct  which  has  existed  in  particular  ages  and  coun- 
tries. If  the  author  had  been  treating  on  the  subject  of  religious  to- 
leration, it  might  have  been  expected  that  he  would  detail  these 
circumstances ;  but  what  connection  they  have  with  the  question, 
whether  the  Apostles  established  distinct  orders  in  the  Ministry,  or 
instituted  the  plan  of  parity,  I  confess  myself  utterly  at  a  loss  to  com- 
prehend. 

Popery  is  brought  forward  on  this  occasion.  This  is  a  common 
practice.  It  is  certainly  high  time  that  it  should  cease.  '^Tlie  Pro- 
testant EjHscopal  Churcli  is  now,  and  ever  has  been,  the  firmest 
bulwark  of  the  cause  of  the  Reformation.  The  sacerdotal  authority 
is  not  impaired  by  haying  descended  through  the  Romish  Church. 
If  it  is,  the  scriptures  are  equally  affected,  for  we  derive  them  from 
the  same  source.  Episcopacy  was  no  part  of  the  corruptions  of 
Popery.  Our  Church  reformed  the  abuses  which  had  been  intro- 
duced, but  she  pretended  not  to  create  a  new  priesthood  any  more 
than  new  st.craments. 

Notwithstanding  the  length  to  which  this  piece  has  been  ex- 
tended, I  cannot  help  introducing  here  the  testimony  of  that  great 
man,  whom  the  Presbyterians  so  highly  admire,  in  favour  of  Epis- 
copacy. I  mean  Calvin.  He  strongly  declared  his  attachment  to 
Episcopacy ;  but  pleaded  the  necessity  of  his  situation,  alleging 
that  he  must  have  gone  for  it  to  the  Roman  Hierarchy.  He  ap- 
plauded most  highly  the  Episcopal  Hierarchy  of  the  Church  of 
England.  "  If  they  would  give  us,"  saj  s  he,  "  such  an  Hierarchy, 
in  which  th.c  Bishops  should  so  excel  as  that  they  did  not  refuse 
to  be  subject  to  Christ,  and  to  depend  upon  him  as  their  only  head, 
and  refer  all  to  him,  then  I  will  confess  that  they  are  worthy  of  all 
anathemas,  if  any  such  shall  be  found,  who  will  not  i-everence  it, 
and  submit  themselves  to  it  with  the  utmost  obedience."  Such  is 
the  language  of  Calvin.  He  appears  to  have  differed  very  widely 
in  opinion  with  some  of  his  modern  admirers. 

I  took  up  my  pen  in  this  business  v/ith  great  reluctance ;  and,  if 
I  know  my  own  heart,  from  a  conviction  of  duty.  It  appeared  to 
me  entirely  improper,  that  a  representation  which  I  think  so  very 
erroneous,  should  go  forth  without  correction,  to  operate  on  the  minds 
of  those  who  may  not  have  had  it  in  their  power  to  give  attention 
to  the  subject  of  ecclesiastical  government.  I  have  no  disposition  to 
embark  in  controversy ;  nor  do  I  believe  I  shall  again  come  forward 
in  reply  to  what  may  possibly  be  called  forth  by  this  address.  The 
mode  of  communication  too  I  dislike  extremely. 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  X.  11 

I  can  trulj'  say,  that  I  feel  much  respect  for  the  gentleman 
on  whose  production  I  have  been  commenting,  and  that  1  wish  weM 
to  the  denomination  of  Christians  of  which  he  is  a  member.  I  most 
sincerely  bless  my  God,  however,  tliat  he  has  led  me  to  the  Epis- 
copal Church.  I  love  her  worship.  Her  liturgy  is  most  precious 
to  my  heart.  Of  her  authority  there  is  no  doubt.  The  Presbyte- 
rians in  denying  it,  would  destroy  themselves;  for  they  derive  ulti- 
mately from  Bishops.  This  is  an  all-important  consideration.  The 
members  of  the  Episcopal  Church  are  certain  that  the  priesthood, 
at  whose  hands  they  receive  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel,  have  a 
real  authority  from  God.  The  authority  of  the  priesthood  being 
of  divine  origin,  can  be  preserved  only  by  adhering  to  the  mode 
established  for  its  transmission.  If  that  mode  be  departed  from, 
all  autliority  ceases.  We  bless  God  that  he  has  given  our  Church 
a  priesthdod,  whose  authority  is  so  unquestionable,  and  we  under- 
take not  to  judge  those  who  have  departed  from  what  we  conceive 
4he  only  mode  of  conveying  the  sacerdotal  power. 

ji  Layman  of  the  Episcopal  Church. 


For  the  Albany  Cendnel. 

MISCELLANIES.    No.  X. 

jLt  may  be  asked.  Do  we  not  read  of  Bi^ojis  ?  Is  it  not  proper 
then  to  have  such  an  order  in  the  Church  ?  It  is  answered,  Presby- 
terians believe  that  such  an  order  is  instituted,  but  not  such  as  the 
Episcopalians  maintain. 

They  contend  that  the  word  explained  and  understood,  does  not 
authorize  the  pre-eminence  of  one  Minister  above  another ;  that  all 
are  equals ;  and  that  the  custom  of  having  diocesan  Bishops  is  cor- 
rupt and  injurious.  It  is  not  uncommon  for  a  word,  through  length 
of  time,  to  be  misapplied  and  misunderstood.  To  determine  the 
true  meaning  in  tiiis,  and  similar  cases,  we  must  always  resort  to 
the  original.  The  English  word  charity  is  now  limited  in  its  sig- 
nification ;  but  in  1  Cor.  xiii.  it  means  love,  in  an  extensive  sense. 
The  Greek  Avord  e/iisko/ios  occurs  five  times  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  signifies  an  overseer  or  insjiector.  It  is  translated  in  four  places 
6ishof},  v/hich  comes  from  the  Saxon  word  bischo/i,  and  in  one  place 
overseer.  The  words  cpiskopees  and  e/iiskofioiintes  are  also  found  j 
the  one  trandated  "  the  office  of  a  bishop,"  and  the  other  "  taking 
the  oversight."  If  these  places  be  examined,  it  will  be  clearly 
seen  tliat  Bishops  and  Presbyters  are  not  distinct  orders  ;  that  the 
same  name,  office,  and  work  belong  to  both ;  and  that  a  Bishop,  such 
as  is  asserted  by  the  Epi.scopal  Church,  receives  uo  countenance. 
In  Titus  i.  5 — 7,  tlie  Apostle  says,  "  For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in 
Crete,  that  thou  shouldcst  ordain  JUders  in  every  city.  If  any  be 
blameless,"  8cc.  "  For  a  Bishop  [cpiskopon]  must  be  blameless," 
&:c.  The  connection  here  shows  beyond  contradiction,  that  Elders 
or  Presbyters  are  also  Bishops.  They  are  called  by  the  one  name 
ftnd  by  the  otlicr.    See  also  Acts  xx.  28,    Paul  haviuij  assembled 


J2  MISCELLANIES.    No.  X. 

the  Elders  or  Presbyters  [presbuterous]  of  the  Church  at  Ephesus, 
a,ddressed  them  thus :  •'  Take  heed,  therefore,  unto  yourselves, 
and  to  all  the  flock  over  the  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you 
overseers"  [episkopous].  Take  one  instance  farther  in  1  Peter  v. 
1,  2.  "  The  Elders  or  Presbyters  [presbutei'ous]  which  are  among 
you  I  exhort,  who  am  also  an  Elder,"  &c.  Here  the  Apostle  Pe- 
ter, from  whom  the  Romish  and  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
pretend  to  have  derived  their  authority,  calls  himself  not  a  Bishop, 
but  an  Elder ;  claims  no  pre-eminence  over  his  brethren.  He  styles 
himself  sumjiresbuteroa,  a  fellow  Elder,  or  an  Elder  with  them.* 
He  adds,  "  Feed  the  flock  of  God  which  is  among  you,  taking  the 
oversight  thereof,"  &c.  or  as  the  word  might  be  rendered  agreea- 
bly to  our  translation  in  other  places,  fierforming  the  office  of  Bi- 
9hojis.  Peter  asserts,  that  himself  was  an  Elder,  and  that  the  El- 
ders were  Bishops.  The  Pope,  notwithstanding,  in  process  of  time 
took  to  himself  the  title  of  Vicar  of  Christy  and  there  was  mar- 
shalled a  sacred  regiment  of  Patriarchs,  Metropolitans,  Arch-Bi- 
shops, Bishops,  Arch-Deacons,  Deacons,  Sccf  Peter  signifies  a 
rock,  and  upon  a  rock  is  the  Church  built ;  but  alas,  some  may  be 
*'  likened  unto  a  foolish  man,  which  built  his  house  upon  the  sand." 
It  must  be  evident  that  the  pretensions  of  either  the  Romish  or 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  to  their  order  of  Bishops  from  the 
name,^  is  utterly  vain.  Every  Presbyter,  Priest,  or  Minister  of  the 
word,  is  a  Bishop  in  the  sense  of  the  New  Testament.  To  speak 
of  the  Bishop  by  way  of  pointing  him  out  of  superior  rank  and 
pov;er  to  the  other  Clergy,  is  improper,  and  is  a  proof  of  words 
being  sometimes  perverted.  No  one  is  entitled  to  the  appellatioa 
as  the  Episcopalians  use  it.  They  would  discover  more  understand- 
ing, more  regard  to  the  sentiments  of  their  fellow  Christians,  more 
of  the  spirit  of  the  Apostles,  and  more  unlimited  obedience  to  the 
injunctions  of  their  divine  Master,  did  they  dismiss  such  aspiring 
and  uncharitable  conduct.  Jesus  Christ  alone  is  "  the  Shepherd  and 
Pishop  of  o^r  souls." II     Memorable  wfts  the  occasion  on  which  he 

*  By  the  same  mode  of  argument  could  it  not  be  proved,  that  our  blessed 
Lord,  who  is  called  both  a  Deacon  and  a  Bishop,  was  in  no  respects  su- 
perior to  them  ?  Ed. 

t  Does  this  author  here  mean  to  insinuate  that  the  Bishops  date  their 
origin  at  the  time  of  the  Papal  usurpation  ?  Ought  he  not  to  have  known 
that  the  most  learned  opponents  of  Episcopacy  date  its  origin  within  forty 
years  of  the  Apostles  ?  Ed. 

^  Episcopajians  never  pretended  to  rest  their  cause  on  the  precarious  and 
changeable  application  of  names.  They  assert,  that  it  appears  from  the 
facts  and  declarations  of  scripture,  that  the  Apostles  comniunieated  their 
Episcopal  power  to  an  order  of  men  distinct  from,  and  superior  to  those 
called  Presbyters  and  Elders ;  and  sometimes  in  reference  merely  to  tlieir 
overseeirig  the  Church,  Bishops.  And  that  to  this  order  the  name  of  Bi- 
shop became  appropriate  after  the  death  of  the  Apostles.  Ed. 

II  But  even  on  the  principles  of  this  author,  is  not  every  Pastor  *'  the 
Bishop"  of  his  congregation  ?  Was  not  this  title  lately  bestowed  in  the 
most  solemn  manner  \ipon  a  Minister  of  New-York  at  his  installation  to 
the  charge  of  a  single  congregation  \  If  the  miscellaneous  author  is  con- 
cistent,  he  will  flot  fail  imn^ediately  to  chide  his  brethren  for  this  "  aspir- 
ing conduct.'^  Ed. 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  X.  13 

Ijavc  a  solemn  and  affectionate  charge  to  his  disciples.  *'  Grant," 
said  the  mother  of  Zebedee's  children,  "  that  these  my  tAvo  sons 
may  sit,  the  one  on  thy  right  hand,  and  the  other  on  the  left,  in  thy 
kingdom."  She  wished  her  sons  to  be  promoted  to  places  above 
the  rest  of  the  disciples,  and  to  be  consecrated  Archbishops  at 
least.  "  But  Jesus  called  them  unto  him,  and  said,  Ye  know  that 
the  princes  of  the  Gentiles  exercise  dominion  over  them,  and  they 
that  are  great  exercise  authority  upon  them.  But  it  ^hall  not  be  so 
among  you." 

The  Episcopalians  not  having  the  semblance  of  an  excuse  for 
their  practice  from  the  term  Bishop,  lat  us  consider  next  some  pas- 
sages of  scripture  which  they  labour  to  introduce  as  pleading  for 
them. 

Because  we  read  of  the  ordination  of  Deaco7is,  of  Jildere,  and  of 
Timothy  and  Titus  being  appointed  to  officiate  in  certain  churches, 
it  has  been  inferi-ed,  that  from  the  beginning  there  were  three  dis- 
tinct orders  of  Ministers.  Let  it  be  observed  that  the  Presbyterians 
do  not  deny  that  there  arc  three  orders  of  officers  in  the  Church  ; 
they  only  deny  that  there  is  any  divine  authority  for  an  order  supe- 
rior to  Presbyters  or  Ministers  of  the  word.  A  plain  distinction  is 
made  in  1  Timothy  v.  17.  between  a  ruling  Elder  and  one  who  also 
teaches,*  Timothy  and  Titus  were,  no  doubt,  Bishops ;  and  so  is 
eveiy  one  Avho  is  set  apart  to  the  ministry  of  the  gospel. f  They 
collected  churches,  and  organized  them  by  ordaining  Elders,  and 
those  helps,  governynents  which  are  instituted ;  and  so  does  every 


*  Let  Dr.  Campbell,  the  most  zealous  opponent  of  Episcopacy  in  modern 
times,  show  the  futility  of  this  distinction  between  a  ruling  and  a  teaching 
Elder.  "  Some  keen  advocates  for  Presbyterj',  as  the  word  is  now  under- 
stood, on  the  model  of  John  Calvin,  have  imagined  they  discovered  this 
distinction  in  these  words  of  Paul  to  Timothy,  (1  Tim.  v.  17.)  '  Let  the 
Elders  that  rule  well  be  counted  worthy  of  double  honour,  especially  they 
who  labour  in  the  word  and  doctrine.'  Here,  say  they,  is  a  two-fold  par- 
tition of  the  officers  comprised  under  the  same  name,  into  those  who  rule, 
and  those  who  labour  in  the  word  and  doctrine,  that  is,  into  ruling  Elders 
and  teaching  Elders.  To  this  it  is  replied  on  the  other  side,  that  the  espe- 
cially is  not  intended  to  indicate  a  different  office,  but  to  distinguish  from 
others  those  who  assiduously  apply  themselves  to  the  most  important  as  well 
as  the  most  difficult  part  of  their  office,  public  teaching;  that  the  distinc- 
tion Intended  is  therefore  not  official  but  personal ;  that  it  does  not  relate  to 
a  difference  in  the  powers  conferred,  but  solely  to  a  difference  in  their  ap- 
plication. It  is  not  to  the  persons  who  have  the  charge,  but  to  those  who 
labour  in  it,  oj  xottjoivteo-.  And  to  this  exposition  as  the  far  more  natural,  I 
entirely  agree."     See  Dr.  Campbell's  Eccles.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  178.        Ed. 

•f  Why  then  do  those  denominations  who  maintain  that  all  Ministers 
are  Bishops  and  on  an  equality,  retain  the  subordinate  orders  of  Church 
officers.  Elders  and  Deacons  ?  The  Elders  of  scripture  we  know  preached 
and  administered  the  sacraments.  But  on  the  Presbyterian  plan  Elders 
are  coniined  to  assisting  the  Minister  in  ruling  the  Church.  The  Dea- 
cons in  scripture  both  preached  and  baptised.  Presbyterian  Deacons  are 
stripped  of  these  powers.  The  fact  is,  that  the  distinction  of  three 
orders  is  so  apparent  in  scripture,  that  tliose  denominations  who  rejected 
Episcopacy  found  it  necessary  to  keep  up  at  least  the  semblance  of  tliQ 
primitive  plan.  JLd. 


14  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XI. 

Presbyterian  Minister.  In  conjunction  with  the  Elders  he  admitat 
to  communion,  inflicts  censm-es,  and  manages  the  spiritual  concerns 
of  that  church  of  which  he  has  the  oversight;  he  forms  new  con- 
gregations, and  organizes  them  in  places  which  have  never  enjoyed 
the  ordinances  of  the  gospel ;  he  is  an  equal  with  the  other  Minis- 
ters, and  so  far  fi'om  being  "  a  Lord  in  God's  heritage,"  he  is  sub- 
ject to  his  brethren;  he,  in  conjunction  with  his  brethren,  licenses 
persons  to  preach,  and  ordains  by  "  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 
the  Presbytery;"*  he  believes  that  he  derives  his  commission  for 
these  things  from  Christ,!  and  that,  therefore,  his  acts  are  valid; 
and  tkough  he  pretends  not  to  be  a  successor  of  the  Apostles,  who 
■were  extraordinary  officers,  qualified  and  appointed  to  establish 
the  Church;  yet  his  office  is  divine,  instituted  by  the  Apostles,  who 
knew  the  mind  of  the  great  Head  and  Lawgiver.^  The  consider- 
ation of  some  other  passages  of  scripture  must  be  deferred  until  a 
future  number. 


POSTSCRIPT  TO  MISCELLANIES  No.  XL 

Which  li'as  on  fiolitical  topics. 

3.  HE  writer  who  has  attacked  me  on  the  subject  of  Church  Go- 
vernment, will  see  that  I  still  act  according  to  the  title  of  "  Mis- 
cellanies." He  professes  to  "  have  long  known  me,  and  to  have 
long  felt  for  me  sincere  respect  and  esteem."  I  have  not  the  happi- 
ness to  know  him  ;  but  nothing  appears,  at  present,  why  the  "  re- 
spect and  esteem"  may  not  be  mutual.  It  is  a  rule  with  me  never 
to  ask  a  printer  who  the  author  of  a  piece  is.  He  has  thought  pro- 
per to  complain  of  "  the  uncharitable  manner"  in  which  I  have 
attacked  his  Church.  Has  he  I'cad  two  late  publications ;  the  one 
entitled,  "  A  Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts,"  Jkc.  and  the 
other  "  A,  Companion  for  the  Alcar,"  &ci'  Does  he  know  that 
the  Bishop  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  State  acts  upon  these 
principles  ?  That  he  holds  no  ordination,  and  no  administration  of 
ordinances  to  be  valid,  but  those  of  the  Episcopal  Church  ?  If  he  is 
acquainted  with  these  things,  the  charge  against  me  of  uncharita- 
bleness  is  made  with  an  extremely  ill  grace.  Quotations  from  the 
performances  alluded  to  will,  in  due  time,  appear.  To  others  I 
may  owe  some  apology,  to  him  none. 

*  This  writer  is  ex'ceedingly  averse  to  quoting  this  text  accurately.  It 
is,  "  luhb  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery."  Ed. 

t  How  can  he  derive  liis  comnii.ssion  from  Christ,  if,  accor(],ing  to  this 
writer,  there  is  no  succession  of  persons  appointed  to  convey  this  commis- 
sion from  the  Apostles,  on  whom  it  was  confen-ed  by  Jesus  Christ  ?     Ed. 

I  This  author  here  very  projierly  admits  that  the  ministerial  office  is  of 
divine,  because  it  is  of  apostolical  institution.  When,  therefore,  we  prove 
that  the  Apostles  instituted  an  order  of  men  with  superior  powers  to  those 
called  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  we  have  a  right  to  conclude  that  their 
ofiice  is  divi::e,  because  "  instituted  by  the  Apostles,  who  knev/  the  mind 
«f  the  great  Head  and  Lawgiver."    Let  this  be  remembered.  EJ. 


CYPRIAN.    No.  I.  -is 

I  am  astonished  at  his  assertions,  that  "  the  dissenters  from  Epis- 
copacy bear  no  sort  of  proportion  to  those  who  aclhere  to  it" — that 
"  now,  the  whole  Christian  world  is  Episcopal,  except  a  few  dissen- 
ters, who,  within  two  or  three  hundred  years,  have  arisen  in  the 
ivestern  Church" — that  if  "  the  Roman  Catholics  be  struck  en- 
tirely out  of  the  calculation,  the  advocates  of  parity  constitute  but 
a  very  trifling  pi'oportion  of  the  remaining  part  of  the  Christian 
world."  I  deny  the  facts,  and  shall  show  hereafter  that  they  do  not 
exist.* 

As  to  my  using  by  instead  of  mit/i,  I  am  not  conscious  of  any 
"  unfairness."  It  is  not  included  in  the  quotations,  and  I  laid  no 
■weight  upon  it.  When  the  ordination  of  Timothy  is  discussed,  it 
will,  indeed,  appear  that  WITH  is  an  important  word.  Both  it  and 
BY  will  be  allowed  their  due  force ;  and  I  trust  that  it  will  be  evi- 
dent that  Timothy  was  not  ordained  after  the  Episcoj^al,  but  after 
the  Pres>byteri:in  mode.  If  the  writer  will  only  patiently  indulge 
me  in  my  miscellaneous  course,  I  promise  him  all  proper  atten- 
tion. 


I 


For  the  Albany  CentineL 
CYPRIAN.    No.  I. 


AM  extremely  sorry  to  find  that  your  Miscellaneous  author  still 
continues  his  dissertations  upon  Church  Government,  or  rather  his 
animadvertions  upon  the  Episcopal  Church.  The  revival  of  reli- 
gious controversies  is  always  dangerous,  is  seldom  if  ever  produc- 
tive of  any  good.f  On  all  points  connected  with  religion,  especi- 
ally on  so  important  and  fundamental  a  one  as  that  of  Church  Go- 
rernment,  the  feelings  of  men  are  peculiarly  delicate.  It  is  ex- 
tremely difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  avoid,  in  the  discussion  of 
them,  wounding  the  feelings  of  some.  This  writer  himself  (whose 
good  sense  and  ingenuity  I  do  not  hesitate  to  acknowledge)  affords 
as  an  additional  proof  of  tlie  correctness  of  this  observation. 
Although  he  commences  his  strictures  with  the  fairest  promises, 
and,  no  doubt,  with  the  most  sincere  desire,  to  preserve  the  "  unity 

*  This  promise  has  never  been  performed.  "  Ed. 

f  And  yet  controversy,  if  properly  managed,  is  certainly  favourable  to  the 
discovery  of  truth.  While  error  exists,  it  must  be  a,  sacred  duty  to  expose 
it,  and  to  contend  against  it.  And  thus  controversy,  in  the  present  imper- 
fection of  human  nature,  appears  unavoidable.  Evils  no  doui)t  attend  it ;  and 
yet  these  v.-i!l  generally  be  counterbalanced  by  the  advantages  that  result  from 
it.  Experience  proves,  that  at  those  periods,  and  in  those  places  where  reli- 
gion is  made  a  subject  of  discussion,  its  truths  are  more  generally  dissemi- 
nated and  understood.  Where  a  spirit  of  false  liberality  places  all  opinions 
upon  a  level,  and  reprobates  the  divine  injunction  of"  contending  earnestiiT' 
for  the  faith,"  there  it  has  always  been  found  that  the  essential  characteris- 
tics of  the  faith  are  soon  totally  forgotten,  neglected,  or  despised. 

Cyprian  has  proved  himself  so  candid  and  so  able  a  controversialist,  that 
his  readers  will  not  regret  the  occasion  v/liich  called  forth  his  pen.     iiJ. 


li  CYPRIAN.    No.  I. 

of  the  spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace,"  yet  his  warmest  friends  mU3t 
admit,  that  before  he  arrives  at  the  conclusion  of  those  he  hath 
already  presented  to  the  public  inspection,  he  indulges  himself  in 
representations  of  the  Episcopal  Church  and  her  tenets  by  no  means 
reconcileable  with  Christian  charity  or  cartdour^  His  disingenuous- 
ness  and  illiberality  have  been  already  amply  exposed  in  the  an- 
swer he  has  received  from  a  judicious  layman :  And  I  must  be  per- 
mitted to  remark,  that  however  deep  may  be  the  sentiments  of 
respect  and  good  will  which  I  entertain  for  this  gentleman,  I  find 
some  difficulty  in  excusing  him  for  the  liberties  he  hath  taken  with 
the  principles  of  that  denomination  of  Christians  to  which  I  profess 
myself  to  belong.  How  shall  I  excuse  him  for  bestowing  upon 
Episcopalians  the  opprobrious  epithets  of  prejudiced,  6f  bigotted^ 
of  superstitious  ?  These  are  hard  names.  They  merit  the  sever- 
est reprehension.  An  attack  so  violent  upon  a  large  and  respecta- 
ble denomination  of  Christians,  when  unprovoked*  too,  can  by  no 
considerations  be  justified  or  palliated.  Yes,  if  to  hold  in  endear- 
ing estimation  the  memory  of  our  blessed  Saviour  and  all  those 
•words  of  eternal  truth  he  hath  delivered  to  us — if  to  pay  an  invio- 
lable regard  to  all  his  sacred  institutions  be  prejudice,  be  bigotry,  be 
superstition — then  do  Episcopalians  merit  these  opprobrious  epi- 
thets. If  to  look  to  their  Lord  as  the  only  legitimate  source  of  all 
power  and  authority  in  his  Church — if  to  adhere  inflexibly  to  that 
form  of  government  he  hath  transmitted  to  them  through  the  hands 
of  his  Apostles,  by  an  uninterrupted  succession  of  Church  officers 
to  the  present  day — if  to  estimate  as  worthy  of  credit  the  testimony 
of  the  Universal  Church  for  1500  years — if  these  things  be  preju- 
dice, be  bigotry,  be  superstition,  then  Episcopalians  claim  these 
reproachful  epithets.  If  to  adhere  to  Episcopacy  be  prejudice,  be 
bigotiy,  be  superstition,  then  is  Christianity  a  venerable  error,  a 
system  of  bigotry,  a  prejudice,  a  superstition. 

But  this  writer  asserts  that  "  the  Classical  or  Presbyterial  form 
of  Church  Government  is  the  true  and  only  one  which  Christ  hath 
prescribed  in  his  word,  and  is  best  adapted  to  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  and  most  conformable  to  their  institutions  of  civil 
government."  In  the  first  part  of  this  proposition,  our  antagonist 
takes  possession,  to  be  sure,  of  a  broad  and  elevated  ground.  From 
this  ground,  however,  he  may  be  assured,  had  he  an  able  adver- 
sary to  contend  with,  he  would  soon  find  himself  obliged  to  retreat 
with  precipitation.    Methinks  he  had  better  chosen  at  once,  a* 

*  I  say  this  attack  is  unprovoked — for  althotigh  I  have  read  the  pub- 
lications to  which  this  gentleman  alhides  when  he  endeavours  to  justify 
himself,  yet  1  am  by  no  means  of  opinion  that  they  exculpate  him  for  hav- 
ing recourse  to  this  mode  of  assailing  the  Episcopal  Church,  of  retorting 
what  he,  it  seems,  has  considered  as  an  injury.  I  beg  this  writer  to  re- 
riember,  that  the  Compa.iion  for  the  Altar,  and  the  Companion  for  the 
Fesiivals  and  Fasts,  are  intended  solely  for  the  use  of  Episcopalians.  Surely 
we  have  a  right  to  instruct  our  people  in  what  we  esteem  as  the  whole 
counsel  of  God.  While  \jc  ar«  tolerated,  this  privilege  will  not  be  denied 
lis.  As  to  the  Bishop  of  this  State,  I  know  him  to  be  warmly  attached  to 
the  principl.-s  of  his  Chi^rch,  and  always  compe.-cnt  to  the  task  of  defending 
tbtm. 


CYPRIAN.    No.  I.  ^         1? 

•orae  of  the  ablest  champions  of  his  cause  have  done,  a  more  li* 
mited  and  a  more  tenable  situation.  Instead  of  rushing  thus  impe-* 
tuously  into  the  field,  he  had  better  I'etired  at  once  into  the  citadel* 
Should  he  and  his  adherents  meet  with  a  defeat  in  the  open  field  of 
argument,  tliey  may  possibly  find  themselves  too  much  weakened 
and  exhausted  to  defend,  at  last,  the  citadel  itself. 

Of  the  last  part  ofthis  proposition,  as  proceeding  from  that  gentle- 
man, I  confess  I  do  not  know  what  opinion  to  entertain.  Can  it  be  the 
deliberate  intention  ofthis  writer,  by  representing  the  Episcopal  forai 
of  Church  Government  as  hostile  to  the  civil  institutions  of  this  coun- 
try, to  excite  an  illiberal,  an  uncharitable,  and  an  unfounded  preju- 
dice against  her?  And  who  could  have  anticipated  an  insinuation 
of  this  kind  from  the  writer  of  a  preceding  number  on  tlie  subject 
of  Demagogues — a  writer  who  had  given  to  the  malignant  some 
colour  for  suspecting  that  he  does  not  entertain  sentiments  of  very 
high  admiration  for  a  form  of  civil  government  which  gives  so  loose 
a  rein  to  these  turbulent  and  mischievous  members  of  society  ?  I 
candidly  confess  that  this  is  a  part  of  his  production  which  I  do  not 
comprehend.  I  will  not  ascribe  to  him  unworthy  motives — lam 
sure  he  is  above  them.  Episcopalians  feel  an  attachment  as  sin- 
cere and  ardent  as  the  rest  of  their  fellow-citizens  to  the  politi- 
cal institutions  of  their  country.  They  are  grateful  to  the  Author 
of  all  good  for  that  inestimable  blessing  of  civil  liberty  which  we 
enjoy.  One  of  the  wishes  nearest  to  their  hearts  is,  that  their  civil 
and  religious  liberties  may  be  long  preserved.  They  admire  that 
form  of  government  sketched  out  in  the  constitution  of  their  coun- 
try. They  would  use  any  exei-tions  to  preserve  it  in  its  purity  and 
vigour.  The  only  apprehension  some  of  them  entertain  on  the 
subject  is,  that  the  materials  of  which  it  is  composed  are  not  suffi- 
ciently durable.  They  fear  that  it  will  fall  into  too  speedy  decay  and 
dissolution.  All  that  they  exact  of  their  rulers  is,  to  impart  to  it  in 
their  adminiftration,  that  stability  and  energy,  which  are  essen- 
tial to  the  promulgation  of  its  existence,  which  ai-e  essential  to 
the  happiness  and  prosperity  of  the  nation.  All  tliat  they  would 
warn  them  against,  is,  any  attempt  at  touching  with  a  rude  and 
sacrilegious  hand,  that  sacred  instrument,  our  constitution,  the  pal- 
ladium of  our  rights,  our  ark  of  safety.  These  are  the  sentiments 
of  perhaps  most  of  us  on  political  subjects.  We  perceive  not,  that 
an  adherence  to  our  ecclesiastical  institutions  tends,  in  the  smallest 
degree,  to  diminish  our  attachment  to  our  civil.  We  feel  not  the 
justness  of  tliis  writer's  observations,  that  the  Presbyterial  form  of 
Church  Government  is  more  conformable  than  our  own  to  our  in- 
stitutions of  civil  government. 

In  fact,  what  incongruity  can  subsist  between  the  Episcopal 
form  of  Cliurch  Government  and  our  institutions  of  civil  poli- 
ty? Is  there  not,  on  the  contrary,  a  striking  analogy  between 
them  ?  Does  not  the  elevation  of  the  order  of  Bishops  to  su- 
preme authority  in  the  Church  strikingly  correspond  to  the  political 
arrangements  of  our  country  ?  Have  not  the  United  States — has  not 
every  State  in  this  union,  a  supreme  magistrate,  possessed  of  high  and 
peculiar  prerogatives  ?  Have  not  these  magistrates  the  poorer  of  com- 
missioning subordinate  officers  to  aid  them  in  the  administration  of 
government  ?  And  with  ^rhat  powers  of  any  importance  are  our  Bi- 

D 


18  CYPRIAN.    No.  I. 

shops  entrusted,  but  the  power  of  commissioning  subordinate  officer* 
of  the  Church?  They  can  obtain  no  undue  influence  over  their  Pres- 
byters, their  Deacons,  or  their  people.  They  can  estabUsh  no  spi- 
ritual tyranny  ;  their  Presbyters,  their  Deacons,  even  the  delegates 
of  the  people  must  co-operate  with  them  in  all  measures  of  sacred 
legislation.  Where,  then,  is  this  formidable  authority  of  our  Bishops 
•with  which  some  gentlemen  would  frighten  the  good  people  of  this 
country?  Where  is  that  terrible  power  lodged  in  the  hands  of  our 
highest  order  of  Ministers  which  this  gentleman,  imitating  some 
of  the  principal  abettors  of  the  same  cause,  has,  very  disingenuously 
endeavoured  to  represent  as  the  first  step,  which  was  taken  by 
the  primitive  rulers  of  the  Church  in  their  ascent  towards  the  chair 
of  papal  supremacy  ? 

And  here,  I  trust  I  shall  be  indulged  in  remarking,  that  it 
is  much  too  common,  and,  unfortunately  for  us,  much  too  po- 
pular an  artifice  made  use  of  by  our  enemies,  to  endeavour  to  cre- 
ate a  prejudice  amongst  Pi'otestants  against  the  Episcopal  Chui'ch, 
by  connecting  her  cause  with  that  of  Roman  Catholics,  by  repre- 
senting her  as  allied  in  her  structure  to  the  Church  of  Rome.  What 
artifice  could  be  more  unfair,  more  illiberal,  more  unwarrantable  ? 
Upon  Episcopacy,  it  is  true,  that  pure,  and  simple,  and  primitive 
form  of  Church  Government  was  constructed,  in  process  of  time^ 
the  gigantic,  the  gloomy,  and  tremendous  despotism'  of  the  Pope. 
But  v.'hat  has  this  form  of  government,  organized  byClirist  and  his 
Apostles,  to  do  with  the  corruptions  of  the  Church  of  Rome  ?  Shall 
the  Episcopal  authority  be  thought  to  have  been  impaired  by  that 
immense  pile  of  extraneous  matter  which  was  heaped  upon  it  dur- 
ino-  the  dark  ages  ?  Shall  Christianity  be  made  accountable  for  those 
enormities  that,  at  different  periods  of  the  world,  have  been  perpe- 
trated under  her  hallowed  name  ?  Shall  she  be  made  to  answer  for 
that  blood  with  which  her  misguided  sons  have  stained  her  sacred 
standard?  Sha.ll  the  constitution  of  England  be  thought  accountable 
for  those  usurpations  of  authority  that  were  witnessed  during  the 
rei<ms  of  her  arbitrary  princes  ?  Neither  should  we  feel  ourselves 
justified  in  abolishing  those  authoi'ities  Christ  has  constituted  in  his 
Church,  because  at  some  periods  they  have  been  instrumental  to 
evil  purposes.  As  well  might  we  overturn  all  civil  government, 
because  sometimes  it  has  been  known  to  degenerate  into  tyranny. 
No,  Episcopacy,  pure  as  the  sacred  fountain  from  which  it 
flov/s,  has  never  been  contaminated  by  any  admixtures  with  the  im- 
purities of  papal  Rome.  And  what  have  the  dignities  and  emolu- 
ments which,  in  some  countries,  where  an  alliance  Ijetwefen  Chuixh 
and  State  is  estimated  as  sound  policy,  are  connected  to  the  Bishop's 
office,  to  do  with  his  ecclesiastical  pre-eminence  ?  These  are  only 
the  habiliments  with  which  Episcopacy  is  cloathed — they  are  by  na 
•means  essentially  connected  with  it.  Episcopacy,  as  the  judicious 
"  Layman"  has  remarked,  is  the  same  in  this  country  and  in  Eng- 
land. It  is  the  same  throughout  Ghrii.tendom.  It  was  the  same 
during  the  time  of  tlie  Apostles  and  their  inmicdiate  successors,  as 
it  was  during  the  most  splendid  eras  of  papal  power,  when  tho 
pretended  Vicar  of  Christ  extended  his  sceptre  over  the  world. 
It  was  the  same  during  those  gloomy  seasons  in  which  the  Church, 
like  her  blessed  Head  and  Founder  in  Gcthscmaiie  was  made  to 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  XH.  If 

sweat  blood  under  the  agony  inflicted  on  her  by  the  fury  of  her  per- 
•ecutors,  and  during  her  triumphant  progress  through  the  Roman 
empire,  under  the  auspices  of  Constantine,  sheltered  by  the  sword 
of  civil  and  military  power.  Episcopacy  lias  been  the  same  through 
all  ages,  in  every  nation.  The  Refornjcrs  of  the  Episcopal  Church 
did  not  think  proper  to  reject  the  whole  of  Christianity,  Ijecause  it 
•was  found  blended  with  unnumbered  superstitions  in  the  Church  of 
Rome.  They  did  not  renounce  the  Sacrament  because  the  mon- 
strous doctrine  of  transubstantiation  was  grafted  on  it.  They  did 
not  reject  tlie  inspiration  of  the  scriptures,  because  the  mischievous 
belief  of  the  Pope's  infallibility  had  arisen  out  of  it.  Neither  did 
they  think  proper  to  renounce  Episcopacy  because  it  had  been  the 
ladder  by  wliich  the  Bishop  of  Rome  ascended  the  throne  of  Papal 
dominion.  They  carefully  separated  the  fundamentals  of  Christi- 
anity which  were  always  contained  in  the  Church  of  Rome  from 
tliose  additions  which  had  been  made  to  them  by  the  hands  of  men. 
They  endeavoured  to  re-organize  the  Church  of  Christ  upon  the 
primitive  model.  They  endeavoured  to  restore  her  to  her  primi- 
tive simplicity  and  beauty.  And  with  triumph  we  avow  that  they 
have  been  successful  in  the  efforts  which  they  made.  They  have 
restoi'ed  to  us  in  the  Episcopal,  the  Church  of  Christ  in  her  primi- 
tive organization,  in  her  primitive  simplicity  and  beauty.  Shall  we 
then  still  be  accused  of  being  too  much  assimilated  in  our  structure 
to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  of  having  imbibed  too  much  of  her 
spirit  and  temperament  ? 

Shall  that  Church  which  at  every  period  has  made  the  most 
bold  and  successful  stand  against  the  assaults  of  Papal  power  ;  that 
Church,  which,  in  every  age  of  her  existence,  has  nourished  and 
matured  in  her  bosom,  as  her  pride  and  ornament,  those  sons  that 
have  proved  the  ablest  champions  of  the  Reformation?  Shall  she  be 
accused  of  having  imbibed  the  corruptions  of  the  Chi^rch  of  Rome  ? 
What !  shall  that  Church  which  has  passed  through  the  fuiniace 
enkindled  by  the  breath  of  persecuting  Rome,  be  accused  of  retain- 
ing her  corruptions,  her  impuritiea?  Shall  not  the  blood  of  Ci'an- 
mer,  of  Ridley,  of  Latimer,  her  illustrious  Reformers,  wash  her 
from  the  stain  of  so  unjust  and  foul  an  imputation  I  But  on  these 
preliminary  points  of  this  writer  I  have  done.  Perhaps  I  have 
already  said  more  than  is  necessary.  I  was  afraid  that  some  im- 
proper impressions  might  be  made  on  the  public  mind  by  his  piece, 
and  I  have  undertaken  to  remove  them. 

CYPRIAN. 


I 


For  the  Albany  Centinel, 
MISCELLANIES.    No.  XIL 


CONSIDER  these  strictures  on  Church  Government  as  n« 
more  than  necessary  self-defence.  If  any  thing  appears  like  an 
attack  upon  Episcopacy,  and  if  its  friends  are  alarmed  lest  its 
strong  holds  be  demolished  or  taken,  the  war  on  my  part  is  still 
purely  defensive,  and  the  laws  of  nations  justify  my  conduct.    They 


20  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XIL 

are  to  blame  who  gave  wanton  provocation,*  by  setting  up  their  awn 
Church  as  the  only  true  one  upon  eai'th,  and  attempting  to  batter 
down  al.  others.  Could  not  the  Episcopalians  be  contented  with 
fi'd  aing  a  constitution  according  to  their  own  mind,  and  peaceably 
enjoying  it,  without  insulting  other  denominations,  treating  them 
as  if  they  were  "  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Isreal,"  and 
assuming  airs  of  dignity  and  superiority  ?t  Who  was  calling  in  ques- 
tion the  validity  of  their  administration  of  ordinances  ?  Why  not 
allow  otiiers  the  same  privilege  which  they  have  taken  to  them- 
selves i\  Is  it  not  wonderful  that  they  reckon  all  out  of  the  Episco- 
pal Church  no  better  than  Heathen  men  and  Publicans,  and  call  this 
c/iuri  y  ;  and  then  brand  all  who  resist  their  pretensions,  with  un- 
charitableness  ?  Be  it  known,  that  if  the  fortress  of  Episcopacy  be 
stormed  ;  if  mitres  strew  the  ground,  andif  their  affrighted  votaries 
fly  in  confusion  and  dismay,  the  evil  has  been  of  their  own  seeking. 
As  soon  as  they  will  cease  to  annoy  their  neighbours,  and  will  mind 
their  own  business,  the  sword  which  is  drawn  in  self-defence,  v/ill 
return  to  its  scabbard. 

To  show  that  my  strictures  are  not  unprovoked  and  useless,  I 
might  have  sooner  referred  the  reader  particularly  to  two  publica» 
lions  made,  during  the  last  year,  by  a  Minister  in  the  communion 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  The  one  is  entitled,  "  A  Com- 
panion for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts,''  &c.  the  other  "  A  Companion 
for  the  Altar,"  &r-)l  The  writer  asserts,  that  those  who  officiate, 
not  being  Episcopaliy  ordained,  are  guilty  of  ''  sacrilege" — that 
Bishops  "  succeeded  to  the  Apostolic  office,''  and  that  this  succes- 
sion is  "  uninterrupted" — that  Bishops  "  are  at  the  head  of  the 
Church,"  and  that  "  through  them  7ninisterial  authority  is  convey- 
ed"— that  "  without  flower  derived  from  him^  (the  Bishop)  it  is  not 

*  This  "  wanton  provocation"  was  an  attempt  to  explain,  in  books  de- 
signed for  Episcopalians,  the  principles  of  their  Church,  and  to  ponit  out  to 
them  the  danger  of  leaving  it !  Ed. 

t  The  Episcopalians  have  "  framed  a  constitution,"  and  wish  "  peacea- 
bly to  enjoy  it."  But  they  are  not  to  be  allowed  to  explain  and  defend  thi» 
constitution  from  scripture  and  primitive  writers !  This  Avould  be  "  insult* 
ing  other  denominations  !"  Ed. 

\  When  have  they  denied  to  other  denominations  the  privilege  of  adopt- 
ing whatever  mode  of  church  government  they  may  deem  proper  ?  When 
have  they  denied  to  other  denominations  the  privilege  of  defending  and  in- 
culcating their  own  principles,  and  opposing  those  opinions  they  may  deem 
erroneous  ?  No,  it  is  the  author  of  Miscellanies  who  would  deny  this  pri- 
vilege to  Episcopalians;  thus  verifying  the  maxim,  that  those  who  inveigh 
most  bitterly  against  bigotry,  are  themselves  often  the  most  bigotted.      Ed. 

II  The  titles  of  these  books  are  here  more  fully  inserted,  in  order  that  the 
reader  may  see  they  were  intended  only  for  the  use  of  Episcopalians.  "  A 
Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America,  &c.  By  John  Henry  Hobart,  A.  RI.  an  as- 
atstant  Minister  of  Trinity  Church,  New-York."—"  A  Companion  for  the 
Altar ;  consisting  of  a  short  explanation  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  Medi- 
tations and  Prayers  proper  to  be  used  before  and  during  the  receiving  of  the 
Holy  Communion  according  to  the  form  prescribed  by  t\\&  Protestant  Epis- 
copal ChurCh  in  the  United  States  of  America.  By  John  Henry  Hobart,  A. 
M.  an  aasi&tant  Minister  of  Triiiity  Cburcb,  Ifew-York."  JSrf. 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  XII.  31 

JatD/ul to  perform  any  ecclesiastical  act" — that  '*  in  the  primitive  age 
every  Bishop  was  the  headof  arf/oc<°.?f  consisting  of  several  separate 
congregations' — that  "  should  Presbyters  assume  the  power  of  or- 
dination, the  authority  of  the  persons  ordained  by  them  would  rest 
on  human  insdfudo?!,  and  their  acts  would  be  nugatory  and  inva- 
lid"— that  "■  Bishops  were  successors  to  the  Apostles,"  and  that  "  it 
is  omy  through  a  succeasion  of  Bishops  as  distinct  from,  and  supe- 
rior to  Presbyters,  that  authority  to  exercise  the  mini.'itrn  can  be 
dei-ived  from  the  divijie  Head  of  the  Church" — that  "the  unity  of 
the  Church  is  violated  when  any  presbyter  separates  from  the  com- 
munion of  his  Bishop.,  and  sets  up  an  independent  government  in 
the  Church,  and  when  tlie  people  separate  themselves  from  the 
communion  of  their  duly  authorized  iVIinisters,  and  from  the  ^o- 
vernme^tit  of  the  Church''— that  this  is  *'  scliism,"  ami  "  answers  to 
the  sin  of  Korah" — that  "  sacraments  not  administered  by  the  Bi- 
shop [of  the  Episcopal  Church]  or  those  commissioned  by  him,  were 
not  only  ineffectual  to  the  parties,  but  moreover,  like  the  offerings  of 
Korah,  provocations  against  the  Lord ' — that  »'  Presbyters  ought 
not  to  baptise  without  the  Bishop's  allowance" — that  "  none  but 
Bishops  [of  the  Episcopal  Chuixh]  have  authority  to  ordain  Mi- 
nisters in  the  Church,  and  none  bat  those  who  are  ordained  by  them 
can  be  truly  said  to  have  a  divine  commission^  or  any  authority  to 
miriister  in  the  Christian  Church" — that  ''  the  mci'its  and  grace  of 
the  Redeemer  are  applied  to  the  soul  of  the  believer  in  devout  and 
humble  pai'ticipation  of  the  ordinances  of  the  Church,  administered 
by  a  priesthood  [the  Episcopal]  who  derive  their  authority  by  regu- 
lar transmission  fi-om  Christ" — that  it  is  "  essential  to  the  eiBcacy 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  to  be  administered  I)y  those  [the  Episcopal 
Priests]  who  have  received  lawful  authority  to  administer  it" — that 
not  to  maintain  the  necessity  of  Episcopal  ordination  is  to  "  present 
salvation  to  men  stripped  of  those  conditions  on  which  alone  it  is 
attainable" — that  "  every  dispensation  of  divine  grace  has  ijcen 
confined  to  a  part  only  of  mankind" — that  "  the  visible  Church  of 
Christ  is  known  by  adhering  to  the  government  of  the  Church,  by 
Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons" — that  it  is  "  the  sacred  duty  of  all 
Christians  to  preserve  the  unity  of  the  Church,  by  continuing  in 
the  Church  [Episcopal]  if  by  God's  grace  it  is  our  happy  lot  to 
be  already  in  it ;  or  by  coming  into  it,  if  it  be  our  misfortune  hitherto 
to  have  kept  ourselves  out  of  it." — Here  let  the  reader  take 
breath,  and  compose  himself*   - — — .  % 

•  The  candid  reader  will  be  cautious  of  forming  his  opinion  concerniii'' 
these  books  from  the  above  disjoined  and  mutilaied  extracts.  The  Lay-. 
man,  who  in  his  third  and  fourth  numbers  ably  defends  these  works,  very 
justly  observes  concerning  these  extracts —  "  Deductions  are  separated  from 
x\\e\r  preTnises,  opinions  from  \hc\r  proofs,  and  consequences  from  tlieir  quali- 
fications." How  could  tlie  author  of  Miscellanies  reconcile  it.  with  can- 
dour, with  truth,  with  Christian  justice,  to  withhold  the  important  remark 
with  which  the  author  of  the  obnoxious  works  qualifies  the  opinions  there 
advanced;  that  God  will  extend  "  mercy  to  all  who  labour  under  unavoid- 
able ignorance  or  involuntary  error?" — And  surely  error,  which  is  the  result  of 
■honest  conviction,  and  not  of  wilful  prejudice,  or  of  a  neglect  to  search 
for  the  truth,  is  involuntary  and  excusable. 

In  the  works  in  question,  the  author  endeavours  to  prove  from  scripture, 


22  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XII. 

could  give  many  more  quotations,  and  refer  to  the  page  ;  but  it  is 
unnecessary.  Let  any  one  only  open  "  A  Companion  for  the  Festi- 

that  Christ  commissioned  his  Apostles  to  institute  the  Priesthood  of  the 
Church  ;  that  they  instituted  three  orders,  and  gave  the  power  of  ordina- 
tion exclusively  to  the  first ;  that  to  these  orders  the  apostolic  injunctions  of 
obedience  to  those  who  have  the  spiritual  rule  over  us  apply  ;  and  that  by 
communion  v^rith  them  we  must  maintain  the  utiity  of  the  Church.  These 
opinions,  he  endeavours  to  prove,  are  sanctioned  by  the  concurring  testi- 
mony of  all  the  primitive  fathers  ;  and  it  is  solemnly  averred  that  all  the 
obnoxious  expressions  in  those  books  have  this  sanction.  Ignatius,  a  vene- 
rable martyr  to  the  faith,  was  the  disciple  of  the  beloved  Apostle  St.  John. 
And  what  stronger  language  can  be  used  than  that  used  by  this  holy  Fa- 
ther in  his  epistle  to  the  Smyrneans.  "  He  that  honours  the  Bishop  shall 
be  honoured  of  God  ;  but  he  that  does  any  thing  without  his  knowledge, 
ministers  unto  the  devil."  This  quotation  is  taken  from  the  genuine  epistles 
of  Ignatius ;  acknowledged  as  genuine  by  the  generality  of  learned  men, 
piany  of  them  (among  whom  the  celebrated  Dr.  Lardner,  author  of  the 
Credibility  of  the  Gospel  History,  ranks)  not  Episcopalians.  Many  other 
quotations  equally  strong  might  be  adduced  from  the  epistles  of  Ignatius, 
and  the  writings  of  the  Fathers. 

Several  of  theobnoxious  expressions  also  are  quotations  from  the  writings 
of  some  of  the  most  pious  and  learned  divines  of  the  Church  of  England. 
The  sentiments  concerning  episcopacy  there  advanced  are  supported,  among 
many  others,  by  the  venerable  names  of  Bishop  Andrews,  Bishop  Sander- 
ton,  Bishop  Hall,  Bishop  Taylor,  Archbishop  Potter,  of  Hooker,  of  Ham- 
mond,  of  Leslie;  and  in  more  modern  times,  of  Bishop  Home,  yoncs  of 
Nayland,  of  the  profoundly  learned  Horselj,  of  Daubeny,  the  able  defender 
of  primitive  faith  and  order. 

The  piety  and  learning  of  Bishop  Beveridge  are  universally  acknowledg- 
ed. His  works  are  held  in  high  estimation  by  the  pious  of  all  denomina- 
tions. Let  the  following  quotation  from  his  sermon,  entitled,  Christ's  Pre' 
sence  'with  his  Ministers,  be  seriously  perused.  "  And  as  for  schism,  they 
certainly  hazard  their  salvation  at  a  strange  rate,  who  separate  themselves 
from  such  a  Church  as  ours  is,  wherein  the  apostolical  succession,  the  root  of 
all  Christian  cotnniu7iio7i,  hath  been  so  entirely  preserved,  and  the  word  and 
sacraments  are  so  effectually  administered ;  and  all  to  go  into  such  assem- 
blies and  mectitigs  as  have  no  pretence  to  the  great  promise  in  my  text,  '  Lo  I 
am  with  you  alway,'  &c.  For  it  is  manifest  that  this  promise  was  made 
only  to  the  apostles  and  their  successors  to  the  end  of  the  world.  Whereas, 
in  the  private  meetings,  where  their  teachers  have  no  apostolical  or  episco- 
pal imposition  of  hands,  they  have  no  ground  to  pretend  to  succeed  the  Apot-- 
ties,  nor  by  consequence  any  right  to  the  spirit  which  our  Lord  here  promis- 
eth." 

Will  the  author  of  Miscellanies  rank  the  pious  Bishop  Beveridge,  and 
the  other  venerable  divines  above  mentioned,  among  the  "  fanatics"  whO) 
hold  to  the  uninterrupted  line  of  succession  from  the  Apostles  ;  among  the 
intolerant  bigots  who  maintain  the  divine  institution  of  Episcopacy  !  If  the 
author  of  "  tlie  Companion  for  the  Altar"  and  for  "  the  Festivals  and  Fasts'* 
is  to  be  considered  as  sfunatic,  a  narrow  and  intolerant  bigot,  it  ought  to  be. 
knov^n  that  he  stands  in  company  whom  indeed  he  resfinbles  only  iri, 
holding  the  same  opinions,  but  with  whom  any  divine,  however  superior, 
his  talents,  his  learning,  or  his  piety,  might  be  proud  to  be  ranked. 

"  The  divine  right  of  episcopacy"  (to  use  the  language  of  a  Layman  of 
the  Church  of  England  who  v/rote  in  the  last  century)  "  is  plain  fron» 
scripture,  and  was  never  called  in  question  by  any  considerable  number  p€ 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  XIL  S3 

¥als,"  Sec.  and  read  under  the  head  of  "  Preliminary  instructions 
concerning  the  Church,"  and  he  will  be  at  no  loss  about  pages.  He 
should  read  the  whole,  in  order  to  understand  what  Episcopacy 
v)ould-be  in  this  country.  In  "  A  Companion  for  the  Altar,"  &c.  I 
■would  recommend  a  perusal  of  the  extraordinary  meditation  for  the 
"  Saturday  evening"  immediately  preceding  the  communion  ;  not 
indeed  by  way  of  preparation  for  that  solemn  business  ;  for  I  think 
that  he  ought  to  have  other  things  in  his  head  and  heart,  than  what 
he  will  find  there  discussed.*  A  long  quotation  from  it  shall  ap- 
pear hereafter. — At  present,  I  shall  conclude  with  a  few  short 
remarks. 

1.  The  sentiments  quoted  would  be  unfairly  charged  to  Episcopa- 
lians, were  they  not  advanced  by  one  who  is  an  assistant  to  his 
Bishop  in  the  same  congregation.  Would  he  have  published  them 
without  the  advice,  direction,  or  countenance  of  his  Bishop  ?  Has 
he  received  any  censure?  Nay,  the  Bishop  has  confirmed  every 
sentiment  by  his  own  practice.  He  has  re-oi'dained  and  even  re- 
baptised.  At  the  same  time,  I  verily  believe,  that  Episcopalians, 
in  general,  do  not  avow  these  principles,  and  that  they  are  not 
aware  of  their  being  so  diligently  and  solemnly  propagated.f 

men  till  within  these  last  two  hundred  years:  and  must  we  now  lay  it  aside, 
for  fear  of  opposing  new  upstart  notions  and  opinions  ?  God  forbid  !  Must 
our  holding  fast  the  sound  doctrine  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles  be  called 
uncharitable  and  unkind,  because  it  does  not  suit  with  the  temper  and  dis* 
position  of  other  people  ?  Cannot  we  still  keep  our  charity  for  them  by  be« 
licving  that  God  v/ill  dispense  with  the  very  want  of  the  Christian  sacra- 
ments, and  bestow  even  the  supernatural  graces  of  them,  to  those  who 
labour  under  invincible  ignorance  or  '  involuntary  error  '  or  else  under  an 
impossibility  of  receiving  those  sacraments,  when  they  do  all  lliat  lies  in 
their  power  to  fulfil  his  blessed  will  ?  Certainly  we  may  ;  for  God  can  dis- 
pense with  his  own  institutes,  and  give  the  spiritual  graces  annexed  to  them 
to  whom  he  pleases."  (Laurence  on  Lay  Baptism.)  Ed. 

*  The  author  of  Miscellanies  thinks  that  all  inquiries  concerning  the  au- 
thority of  those  who  are  to  administer  the  holy  communion  are  unnecessary 
and  improper.  Let  the  reader  attend  to  the  following  extract  from  "  the 
Christian  Sacrifice,"  a  work  designed  as  a  preparation  for  the  Holy  Com- 
munion, and  written  by  the  pious  Nelson,  a  Layman  of  the  Church  of 
England.  "  And  since  we  live  in  an  age  that  is  inclinable  to  make  all  the 
inherent  pffwers  in  the  priesthood,  to  be  the  effects  of  priestcraft;  and  that 
Others  take  upon  them  to  sign  and  seal  covenants  in  God's  name,  tu.'jo  ha'-je 
no  comviission  for  the  purpose  ;  it  will  be  fit  for  any  man  that  prepares  him- 
self for  this  holy  ordinance,  to  consider  ivbo  has  the  power  of  administering 
this  holy  sacrament ;  whether  laym.en  as  well  as  clergymen  u'/6o  have  received 
their  cotntnission  from  the  Apostles.  This  consideration,  I  am  sure,  will  be 
of  great  comfort  to  the  faithful  members  of  the  Church  of  England, 
which  has  preserved  the  ancient  apostolical  government,  and  the  priinitiva 
orders  in  a  due  subordination,  whereby  they  are  secured  of  a  right  and 
truly  canonical  ministry."  Ed. 

t  If  "  Episcopalians  in  general  do  not  avow  these  principles,"  it  is  cer- 
tainly the  duty  of  the  Clergy  to  inculcate  them  with  the  greater  assiduity 
and  earnestness.  For  the  Episcopal  Church,  adopting  the  language  of  the 
holy  Ignatius,  the  contemporary  of  the  Apostles — "  that  it  is  not  lawful 
vitboitt  the  Bishop  either  to  baptise  or  to  celebrate  the  holy  communion ;" 
and  the  liuiguage  of  th«  Ciurc/j  Universal,  tnaintains,  i»  the  preface  to  the^ 


24  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XII. 

2.  The  chfti'ge  oi  uncharitableness  lies  -wholly  at  the  door  of  Epis* 
copalians.  Brazen  must  be  the  front  of  that  man  who  attempts  to 
bring  it  against  Presbyterians. 

3.  If  the  doctrines  contained  in  the  works  quoted  be  true,  then 
the  first  Bishop  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  State  was  never 
baptised.  He  never  had  any  other  baptism  than  what  was  admi- 
nistei-ed  by  a  Minister  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church.  This  Mi- 
nister was  not  episcopally  ordained — he  was  only  a  Dutch  Fresby- 
ter^  or,  if  you  please,  a  Dutch  Bisho/i,  and,  consequently,  his  act 
was  "  nugatory  and  invalid."  The  present  Bishop  has  declared  it 
to  be  so,  by  re-baptising  children  who  had  been  baptised  by  a  Lu- 
theran Minister.* 


ordination  services,  that  no  man  is  to  be  considered  as  a  lawful  Minister 
who  bath  not  bad  Episcopal  consecration  or  ordination. 

The  Episcopal  Minister  who  has  provoked  the  unappeasable  ire  of 
the  author  of  Miscellanies,  inculcated  these  principles,  not  in  nevispaper 
addresses,  not  in  jjamphlets  inviting  general  perusal,  but  in  books  ad* 
dressed  to  Episcopaiiajis.  If,  however,  these  principles  are  erroneous,  let 
them  be  exposed  ;  if  they  are  opposed  to  the  tenets  of  other  denominations, 
let  those  denominations  be  warned  against  them  ;  but  let  this  be  done  bj 
fair  argument,  with  decency  and  candour;  and  not  with  the  weapons  of 
misrepresentation,  ridicule,  and  invective.  £d. 

*  As  3.  general  proposition  it  is  true,  that  the  administration  of  ordi- 
■nances  by  those  who  have  not  received  their  commission  through  the  regu- 
la,r  apostolical  succession,  is  "  nugatory  and  invalid."  But  certainly  circutn.' 
stances  may  sometimes  qualify  general  truths.  It  may  be  presumed,  that 
when  a  person  who  has  received  baptism  from  irregular  authority,  after- 
wards submits  himself  to  the  regular  authority  of  the  Church,  by  receiving 
confirmation  or  the  holy  eucharist,  the  dejiciency  of  his  baptism,  in  respect 
to  the  authority  of  those  who  administered  it,  is  then  supplied.  This  is  the 
opinion  of  many  divines  of  the  Chuich  of  England,  who  deservedly  rank 
high  for  their  attachment  to  Episcopal  principles;  and  particularly  of  th^ 
learned  Bingham,  the  author  of  Ecclesiastical  Antiquities.  This  class  of 
divines,  however,  deny  that  any  person  has  legitimate  authority  to  admi- 
nister baptism,  but  those  episcopally  ordained.  Accordingly  their  maxim 
IS, fieri  non  debet,  factum  valet.  It  is  not  laiful  to  be  done  ;  vihcn  done,  it  it 
valid. 

Another  class  of  Episcopalians  contend,  that  all  baptisms  administered 
by  those  who  have  never  received  a  commission  through  the  "  originally 
constituted  order"  are  invalid.  This  opinion  is  maintained  with  smgular 
force  and  perspicuity  of  argument,  in  a  treatise,  entitled,  "  Lay  Baptism 
Invalid,"  published  by  R.  Laurence,  A.  M.  a  layman  of  the  Church  of 
England.  He  contends,  that  three  things,  all  instituted  by  Christ  in  his 
memorable  commission  to  his  Ajiostles,  are  necessary  to  a  valid  bapti.sm ; 
the  matter,  the  form.,  and  the  authority.  The  matter,  the  name  rf  the 
Trinity;  the  form,  luater ;  and  the  authority,  a  commission  given  to  tie 
Jpostles  and  their  successors — "  Go  ye,  and  baptise — Lo,  I  am  ii-nth  you 
al'ivay,  even  to  the  end  of  ihe  world.  These  three  things  being  insti- 
tuted by  Christ,  are  equally  and  indis5)ensably  necessary;  and  the  defici- 
ency of  any  one  of  them  renders  a-bapcism  invalid.  Hence  it  follows  that 
a  baptism  administered  by  one  who  has  not  received  a  commission  from 
those  authorised  as  the  successors  of  the  Apostles,  is  not  a  valid  baj>tism. 
This  tract,  independently  of  the  important  subject  of  which  it  treats,  is 
•well  worthy  of  ^cneraLperusal,  on  account  of  the  singular  ingenuity  and 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  XIL  3S 

4.  The  writer  quoted  speaks  of  his  being  "  humble  in  attain- 
ments ;"  but  I  think,  he  bids  fair  to  rival  if  not  eclipse  Archbishop 
Laud  himself. 

force  of  its  reasoning.     On  these  principles,  the  Lutheran  Minister  acted 
in  applying  to  the  Bishop  to  baptise  hi*  children. 

The  author  of  Miscellanies  several  times  insinuates,  that  some  persons 
have  been  ordained  Priests,  and  one  a  Bishop  who  had  not  Episcopal  bap- 
tism. Admitting  the  truth  of  his  assertion,  of  what  advantage  is  it  to  his 
cause  ?  Admitting  that  the  st^al  of  authority,  in  which  alone  their  baptism 
■was  deficient,  was  not  supplied  when  they  received  confirmation,  or  the 
Holy  Eucharist,  from  the  hands  of  Christ's  authorised  Ministers;  what  ini 
superabtt;  impediment  was  there  to  their  receiving  the  ministerial  commis- 
sion ?  This  commission,  deriving  all  its  efficacy  from  the  power  of  Christ, 
is  independent  of  the  quahtications  of  the  Minister.  Holiness  of  heart  and 
fife  is  certainly  as  indispensable  a  qualification  in  a  Minister  as  a  valid  bap- 
tism.  And  yet  we  find  that  Judas,  who  was  "  a  traitor,  and  had  a  De- 
Til,"  was  one  of  the  highest  order  of  Ministers.  The  author  of  Mis- 
cellanies, surely,  will  not  rtiaintain  that  the  absence  of  vital  holiness  irt 
a  Minister  renders  nugatory  his  administration  of  the  ordinances.  Neither 
can  he  contend  that  any  defect  in  the  baptism  of  a  Minister  renders  nu- 
gatory the  exercise  of  a  valid  ministerial  commission. 

The  fo!!lowing  extract  from  "  Laurence  on  Lay  Baptism,"  the  treatise 
above-mentioned,  will  set  this  subject  in  a  just  light.  "  Baptism  itself  be- 
ing no  constituent  essential  part  of  his  commission  or  ordination,  he  who 
is  destitute  of  baptism  is  not,  by  reason  of  that  -want  alone,  destitute  of 
Holy  Orders.  If  it  be  objected,  that  while  he  is  unbaptised,  he  is  out  o^ 
the  Church  ;  and  how  can  he  who  i;;  not  of  the  Church,  admit  another 
by  baptism  into  the  Church?  I  answer;  though  he  is  out  of  the  Church! 
with  respect  to  any  benefits  himKelf,  yet  not  with  respect  to  the  spiritual 
benefits  which  he  has  authority  and  commission  mediately  to  convey  to 
others.  A  man  may  be  a  true  messenger  to  carry  that  good  to  another, 
which  he  himself  neither  does,  nor  ever  will  enjoy.  A  master  of  a  family 
may  send  a  neighbour,  or  a  stranger  lubo  is  not  of  his  family,  and  gi\e  him 
full  power  and  authority  to  adopt  into  his  family  some  poor  destitute  Or- 
phan children  whom  he  commiserates.  And  though  that  stranger  be  not 
of  the  family  himself,  yet  his  adopting  those  poor  children  into  that  fa- 
milv,  stands  good ;  because  the  master  of  the  family  sent  and  etnpowered  hint 
TO  do  it.  This  1  take  to  be  very  parallel  to  the  case  in  hand  ;  and,  there- 
fore, he  who  IS  not  of  the  Church,  because  unbaptised,  may  as  truly  ad- 
mit a  person  into  the  Church  by  baptism,  as  he,  who,  (though  baptised) 
through  his  wickedness,  is  destitute  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  can  conve)  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  by  his  ministration  of  sacraments  to  others.  For  as  it 
K  not  t.\\c  personal  holiness  of  the  administrator  that  conveys  holiness  to  me 
in  the  ministration  of  any  sacrament,  so  neither  does  his  having  received 
that  sacrament  signify  any  thing  to  me  fc^r  the  validity  thereof,  when  he 
administers  it  to  me  by  virtue  of  a  divine  commission  explicitly  given  to  hint. 
This  coMMiiiioN  ALONE  is  that  whicli  maices  the  ministration  not  his, 
but  God's  own  act;  and,  as  such,  ivithout  any  other  appendant  cause,  it  ia 
good  and  valid.  Henre  our  blessed  Lord  called  both  unbaptised  and  unholy 
men,  vir.  his  Apostles,  wlio  cannot  be  proved  to  have  been  baptised  in  the 
name  rf  the  Qrinity  before  his  resurrection  ;  and  one  of  them,  Judas  Iscariot, 
a  thief,  a  devil  in  hisdi-sposition — to  the  administration  of  holy  things  ;  as 
if  he  would  thereby  teach  us  to  look':;///6y<7if/J>  on  tua  authority  on'I,y, 
without  confiding  in  any  of  the  best  accomplishments  of  those  on  whom 
if  has  confcnc'J  it.     And  if  we  do  but  look  back  to  the  condition  of  ihs 

E 


28  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XIL 

POSTSCRIPT. 

Since  the  above  was  written,  I  have  read  a  continuation  of  the 
address  by  "  A  Layman  of  tlie  Episcopal  Church.''  I  repeat  the 
assurance  that  the  word  BY  is  not  included  by  me  in  the  quotation 
of  the  Apostle's  words  to  Timothy,  that  the  passage  is  not  in  ''  a 
mutilated  state,"  and  that  it  was  far  from  my  thoughts  to  substitute 
BY  for  WITH.  This  would  defeat  my  own  purpose,  when  I  come 
to  explain  the  text.  Upon  this,  and  another  in  the  second  Epistle 
to  Timothy,  taken  in  connection  with  other  parts  of  scripture,  I 
am  willing  that  the  whole  controversy  should  i-est.  I  hope  to  give 
a  more  natural  and  just  interpretation  of  them  than  he  has  given. 
I  wish  he  had  spared  the  following  words :  "  I  feel  strongly  disposed 
to  suspect  weakness  in  a  cause,  when  I  find  such  expedients  em- 
ployed to  defend  it."  I  forbear  any  retort.  If  he  be  the  person  I 
suppose  him,  I  love  him  too  much  readily  to  believe  that  he  can  be 
otherwise  than  ingenuous.  I  wish  the  Episcopal  Church  had  many 
laymen  and  preachers  of  his  talents  and  virtues.  A  great  deal  of 
what  he  says,  is,  no  doubt,  true  ;  but  it  is  not  properly  applied,  and 
does  not  support  his  cause.  All  that  is  necessary  by  v/ay  of  reply, 
will  be  found  in  the  course  of  my  numbers,  without  a  particular 
reference  to  him. 

Let  me  add  farther,  that  the  reader  will  certainly  justify  much 
greater  severity  than  what  I  shall  use.  The  provocation  given  to 
non-episcopalians  has  been  wanton  and  great.  There  can  be  no  ob- 
jection against  the  Episcopahans  managing  their  own  affairs  in  their 
own  way.  Had  they  not  treated  other  churches  with  indignity  and 
insult— had  tliey  maintained  their  Bis/tops,  Priests^  and  Deacons, 
and  plead  divine  authority,*  and  not  charged  others  with  the  sin  of 
schism,  and  as  having  neither  Ministers  nor  ordinances,  I  had  never 
written  a  word  on  the  subject.  I  wish  them  more  humility  and  cha- 
rity, as  being  the  way  to  greater  prosperity. 

Jewish  Church,  during  their  forty  years  sojourning;  in  the  wilderness,  wfi 
shall  find  that  none  of  them  were  circumcised  in  all  that  space  of  time. 
Though  the  uncircumcised  were,  by  God's  own  appointment,  to  be  cut  off 
fiotn  among  bis  people,  yet  the  ministry  of  those  ])riests  and  scribes  who 
were  born  in  the  term  of  those  forty  years,  was  not  annulled  and  made  void 
for  their  want  of  circumcision;  which,  doubtless,  was  as  much  necessary  to 
qualify  them  for  holy  orders,  as  baptism  is  now  to  qualify  our  Christian 
Priests."  -£(/. 

*  How  strangely  inconsistent  is  this  gentleman  !  Though  he  here  allows 
Episcopalians  to  plead  "  divine  authority"  for  their  order  of  Bishops;  yet 
the  moment  they  attempt  to  exercise  the  right  which  he  grants  them,  to 
inculcate  their  principles,  and  to  act  upon  them  by  ordaining  those  who 
have  not  been  episcopally  ordained,  they  are  considered  as  treating  other 
churches  whh  "  indignity  and  insult."  Though  he  here  allows  Episcopa- 
lians to  plead  "  divine  authority"  for  Episcopacy;  yet,  at  tlie  close  of  his 
twenty-third  number,  he  warmly  censures  them  for  oflering  this  plea. 
This  is  his  language  in  that  number.  "  I  have  no  objection  to  their  pre- 
ferring Episcopal  ordination,  provided  that  they  voill  cease  to  assert  it  on  divine 
rij^ht ;  for  I  think  that  this  is  untenable,  offensive  to  their  fellow  Christians 
of  other  denominations,  and  injurious  to  themselves."  This  author  fre- 
quently accuses  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  of  having  written  incautiously 
and  with  precipitancy.  lie  certainly  affords  many  specimens  of  the  care 
and  consideration  with  which  he  has  composed  his  Miscellanies.        Jid.    ■ 


(   '^-r   ) 

For  the  Albany  Centinel. 

THE  LAYMAN.     No.  II. 

JLt  was  my  wish  to  have  said  nothing  more  on  the  subject  of  Ec- 
clesiastical Government.  The  circumstance,  however,  which  led 
me  to  take  up  my  pen  continues  to  exist :  I  still  feel  it  a  duty  to  cor- 
rect such  views  of  the  Church,  as  appear  to  me  to  be  inaccurate  ; 
and  to  endeavour  to  prevent  any  improper  impression  which  they 
may  have  a  tendency  to  make  on  the  public  mind. 

The  cause  of  religion  has  been  deeply  injured  by  the  angry  con- 
tests of  its  professors.  If  the  friends  of  Christianity  are  occasion- 
ally involved  in  controversy,  let  not  a  spirit  of  bitterness  in  the  ma- 
nagement of  it  give  reason  of  triumph  to  their  foes. 

The  professions  which  I  have  made,  of  regard  for  the  writer 
■whom  I  oppose,  are  sincere.  I  have  long  been  in  the  habit  of  ad- 
miring his  talent*,  and  revering  his  virtues.  If  I  have  said  any 
thing  that  has  wounded  his  feelings,  or  that  may  have  appeared  to 
him  not  perfectly  consistent  with  delicacj-,  I  entreat  him  to  ascribe 
it  to  zeal  in  the  support  of  a  cause  which  I  deem  important ;  to  any 
thing,  rather  than  a  want  of  that  esteem  and  respect  for  his  cha- 
racter which  it  is  equally  my  happiness  to  feel  and  to  express. 

When  individuals  or  bodies  of  men  get  engaged  in  controversy, 
nothing  is  more  common,  or  more  natural,  than  for  each  to  think 
the  injury  inflicted  solely  by  the  other,  and  to  indulge  his  feelings,  ex- 
cited and  nourished  by  this  partial  view  of  things  to  which  the  human 
mind  is  so  prone.  When,  therefore,  I  observe  expressions  in  the 
numbers  of  this  wiiter,  which  appear  to  me  to  be  exceptionable,  I 
recollect  this  quality  in  man,  and  find  no  dilhculty  in  ascribing  to 
honest  zeal  what,  upon  a  more  narrow  \iew,  I  might  consider  aa 
involving  a  departure  from  Christian  charity.  Let  me  entreat  him 
to  cherish  a  similar  disposition  towards  the  Episcopal  Church.  I 
sincerely  believe  she  has  never  given  the  other  denominations  of 
Christians  just  cause  of  offence  ;  and,  I  even  indulge  the  hope,  that 
a  dispassionate  examination  of  the  works  against  which  he  objects, 
■will  present  them  to  his  viev/  in  a  point  of  light  very  different  from 
that  in  which  he  has  been  accustomed  to  consider  them.  Upon  this 
part  of  the  suliject  I  now  enter ;  begging  leave,  however,  to  take 
uoticc,  in  the  first  place,  of  a  passage  in  the  tenth  number  of  the 
Miscellanies,  which  appears  to  me  to  call  for  some  animadversion. 
"  The  ji/wslle  Peter,  from  ivhom  the  Romish  and  the  Protestant 
Ejiiscojial  Church  firciend  to  hm<c  derived  their  authority." 

When  did  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  profess  to  derive  her 
power  from  the  .^//os/'/<?  Peter  ^  Has  she  not  invariably  and  strenu- 
ously  opposed  that  imaginary  distinction  among  the  Apostles,  upon 
which  the  Church  of  Rome  founded  her  usurped  supremacy  ?  Pa~ 
fiacy  and  K/uscofiacy  are  as  inconsisteRt  as  are  P/iisco/iacy  and 
Parity.  The  Papists  liave  departed  on  the  one  side  ;  the  Presbyte- 
rians on  the  other. 

The  supremacy  of  the  Pope  is  supported  by  representing  him  as 
the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  and  by  representing  St.  Peter  as  the 
Prince  of  the  Apostles.    The  passage  of  scriptiire  relied  upon  tbs 


28  LAYMAN.    No.  II. 

this,  is  that  which  contains  the  promise  of  the  keys ;  but,  it  has  been 
thoi'oughly  explained,  by  some  of  the  ablest  writers  of  our  Church, 
as  being  a  mere  promise,  not  actually  delegating  any  power  at  the 
time,  but  fulfilled,  when  our  Saviour  said  to  his  Apostles,  "  As  my 
Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you.  Receive  ye  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them  j 
and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained."  This  last  dei 
claration  was  made  to  no  one  particularly,  but  to  all  generally. 
It  placed  the  Apostles  upon  a  perfect  level  with  respect  to  each 
other.  Beside,  the  whole  history  of  the  primitive  Church  bear* 
equal  testimony  against  the  Papal  sup.remacy  and  the  Presbyteriaii 
parity.  This  reasoning  is  used  by  the  writers  of  our  Church.  It 
will  be  found,  if  names  are  necessary  to  be  mentioned,  in  Chilling- 
worth  and  Barrow.  I  cite  these  particularly,  because  they  have 
urged  it  with  peculiar  force. 

'  No,  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  waged  open  war  with  all 
the  false  doctrines,  and  all  the  corruptions  of  Popery.  It  is  indeed 
strange,  that  such  a  charge  should  be  brought  against  a  Church  so 
highly  admired  bv  the  first  reformers ;  a  Church  reformed  by 
CRANMER  and  RIDLEY,  and  cemented  with  their  blood. 

Our  Church,  then,  professes  to  derive  her  power  from  Christ, 
through  the  medium  of  the  Apostles  in  general ;  not  through  that 
of  any  one  of  them  in  particular.  IShe  rejects,  utterly,  the  distinc- 
tion for  which  the  Papists  contend  ;  and,  along  with  it,  the  senseless 
jargon  mi  sujiremacy  and  mjanidility  v/ith.  which  the  Romish  Church 
so  long  insulted  the  world.  Episcopacy,  indeed,  she  retained,  be- 
cause she  considered  it  as  a  divine  institution ;  and,  on  this  point, 
was  most  cordially  congratulated  by  Calvin,  Beza,  and  other  illus- 
trious reformers  of  the  time.  They  prayed  earnestly  to  God  that 
it  might  be  preserved  in  the  Chuixh  of  England  ;  lamenting  the  ne- 
cessity of  their  situation,  which  precluded  them  from  it,  as  the 
greatest  of  their  misfortunes.  Strange  that  the  ardent  admirers 
of  these  men  should  condenm,  ns^'-  corrufit  andivjurioitf,^"  an  in- 
stitution which  they  viewed  with  so  favourable  an  eye  I  Calvin  de- 
clared, in  strong  terms,  that  he  opposed  not  the  Episcopal  Hier- 
archy, but  only  the  Papal,  which,  aspiring  to  an  universal  supre- 
jiiacy,  in  the  Sec  of  Rome,  over  the  whole  Christian  world,  usurped 
upon  the  prerogative  of  Christ.  'And  he  anathematised  all  those 
■who,  having  the  E))iscopal  Hierarchy  in  their  power,  should  refuse 
to  reverence  it,  and  submit  themselves  to  it  with  the  utmost  obedi- 
ence. "  If  any  such  shall  be  found,  si  qui  erunt"  says  he,  "  I  will 
readily  confess  that  they  are  worthy  of  all  anathemas;"  evidently 
declaring  that  he  knew  no  .such  persons,  and  owned  nonesuch  among: 
his  followers.  How  fatal  is  the  influence  of  irregular  example ! 
Calvin,  and  the  reformers  who  acted  with  him,  established  Presby- 
terian Government,  alleging  the  impossibility  of  doing  otherwise, 
without  going  to  the  Cliurch  of  Rome ;  still,  however,  expressing 
the  highest  respect  and  reverence  for  the  Episcopal  authority. 
Those  who  profess  to  follow  these  men  have  departed  entirely  from 
their  declarations;  renouncing  the  whole  order  of  Episcopacy  as  a 
*'  corrupt  and  injurious"  innovation.  Indeed,  Calvin  and  his  asso- 
■riates  had  no  sufficient  excuse  ;  for,  although  they  could  not  procure 
Bishops  in  tlieix'  own  countries,  without  receiving  them  from  tlie- 


LAYMAN.    No.  11.  » 

Romish  Church,  yet  they  might  have  gone  to  other  places  for  them. 
And,  if  this  had  drawn  upon  them  a  more  marked  and  severe  per- 
secution, they  would  have  suffered  for  what  tiiey  acknowledged  as 
a  most  important  truth.  This  conduct,  then,  incorrect  in  itself,  laid 
the  foundation  of  schism  in  the  Church,  which  has  been  regularly- 
producing  the  most  bitter  fruits  from  its  origin  to  the  present  time. 

I  have  said  that  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  derives  her  au- 
thority from  Christ,  through  the  medium  of  the  Apostles  in  genei-al, 
placing  them  all  upon  a  perfect  level  with  respect  to  each  other. 
Nor  does  this  circumstance  favour  the  idea  of  parity ;  for  still 
there  were  three  orders,  our  Saviour,  'while  he  was  on  earth,  the 
twelve  Ap>ostles,  and  the  seventy  Disciples.  After  the  ascension  of 
our  Saviour,  there  were  the  Apostles,  the  Elders,  and  the  Deacons : 
so  that,  in  every  period  of  the  Church,  distinct  orders  have  existed 
in  her  ministry.  This  remark  is  made  incidentally  here.  Should 
circumstances  render  it  proper  to  pursue  the  inciuiry,  this  part  of 
the  subject  shall  receive  a  regular  examination. 

The  Episcopal  Church,  then,  professes  not  to  derive  particu- 
larly from  St.  Peter.  She  ascribes  to  him  no  supremacy  over  the 
other  Apostles.  I  have  been  more  full,  perhaps,  than  was  neces- 
sary, on  this  point ;  but  it  appeared  to  me  important  to  show,  at 
some  length,  the  inaccuracy  of  such  a  charge,  it  being  of  a  nature 
to  operate  strongly  on  the  public  mind. 

Tliere  is  another  point  of  view  in  Avhich  the  passage  under 
consideration  requires  to  be  placed.  "  Here  the  Jlpofitle  Peter^ 
from  ivhojn  the  RoTn'tah  and  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  fire- 
iend  to  have  derived  their  authority^  calls  himself  not  a  Bishoji  but 
an  £.lder,  claims  no  /ire-eminence  over  his  brethren.''^ 

Our  author  seems  here  to  place  Peter  upon  a  perfect  level  with 
every  Minister  existing  in  the  Church  ;  which,  indeed,  is  only  fol- 
lowing up  the  mode  of  reasoning,  from  the  promiscuous  use  of 
names,  to  its  true  conclusion.  Nevertheless,  towards  the  close  of 
the  number,  tlie  apostohc  office  is  represented  ■A.^fiurely  extraordi- 
nary. I  wish,  then,  to  understand  him  on  this  point.  Does  he 
maintain  that  the  Apostles  had  no  spiritual  jurisdiction  over  the 
Clergy  in  general  ?  Does  he  maintain  that  they  were  upon  a  perfect 
level  with  the  Elders  of  Ephesus,  having  no  more  power  over  those 
Elders  than  those  Elders  had  over  them  ?  Is  he  willing  explicitly 
to  avow,  and  decidedly  to  support  this  doctrine  ?  I  cannot  but  thus 
understand  him  ;  for  he  expressly  tells  us  that  Peter,  addressing 
the  Presbyters,  claimed  no  pre-eminence  whatever.  And  all  this, 
least  there  should  be  "  lords  in  God's  heritage."  This  lofty  hatred 
of  subordination,  ah  1  how  opposite  is  it  to  the  humility  of  the  gospel; 
what  mischief  hath  it  not  operated  both  in  Church  and  State! 

If  you  carry  the  principle  of  liberty  so  far  as  to  make  it  inconsist- 
ent with  the  existence  of  a  spiritual  au':hority  in  the  Apostles,  and 
their  successors  the  Bishops,  over  the  other  orders  of  the  Clergy, 
you  put  into  the  hands  of  your  adversaries  a  weapon,  with  which 
they  will  very  easily  demolish  the  whole  order  or  the  Priesthood. 
The  wild  plan  of  rcntlering  e\ery  thing  common  in  the  Church, 
giving  to  any  one  who  imagines  himself  qualified,  the  right  of 
preaching,  and  of  administering  tiie  ordinances  of  the  gospel,  with- 
out an  cxtci-aa!  ccunnission,  to  the  utter  dcirniclion  of  all  regular 


so  LAYMAN.    No.  lU. 

and  spiritual  authority  over  the  laity,  in  an  order  of  men  set  apart 
/or  the  pux-posc  of  officiating  in  holy  things,  is  to  be  completely  jus- 
tified by  the  language  of  our  author ;  and  is,  indeed,  only  pursu- 
ing the  reasoning  of  the  advocates  of  parity  to  its  natural  conclu- 
sion. The  whole  body  of  Christians  are  the  heritage  of  God.  And 
shall  there  be  a  distinct  set  of  men  invested  with  authority  to  lord 
it  over  them  ?  This  mode  of  speaking  is  just  as  applicable  to  the 
power  of  the  Clergy  over  the  laity,  as  to  that  superintending  au- 
thority, with  which  the  Bishops  are  invested,  in  relation  to  the 
subordinate  orders  of  their  brethren.  If  the  idea  of  distinction 
and  subordination  among  the  Clergy  be  inconsistent  with  liberty, 
>vhy  is  not  the  idea  of  distinction  and  subordination  between  the 
Clergy  and  laity  equally  inconsistent  ? 

Are  there  not  distinct  orders  of  civil  magistrates  in  our  country; 
and  does  this  interfere  with  the  rights  of  the  people  ?  Why  then 
should  distinct  orders  among  the  Clergy,  involve  any  such  .inter- 
ference ?  Our  author  has  no  objection  to  subordinate  offices  in  the 
state.  He  thinks  it  very  proper  that  there  should  be  a  chief  ma- 
gistrate of  the  Union,  and  chief  magistrates  of  the  individual  com- 
munities. He  sees  nothing  in  this,  or  in  the  various  grades  of  office, 
inconsistent  with  liberty.  Why  then  is  the  idea  of  subordination, 
in  the  government  of  the  Church,  so  very  odious  to  him  ? 

In  opposition  to  the  opinion  of  our  author,  I  venture  to  say,  that 
the  constitution  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  this  coun- 
try is  more  congenial  than  the  Presbyterian  system,  with  its  civil 
institutions.  The  first,  certainly,  bears  most  resemblance  to  a  go- 
vernment composed  of  distinct  branches ;  the  last,  to  one  which 
concentrates  all  its  authority  in  a  single  body.  But,  this  is  a  sub- 
ordinate consideration.  We  are  to  inquire  what  form  of  govern- 
ment is  pi-escribed  in  the  scriptures  of  truth ;  not  what  is  most 
suited  to  the  varying  institutions  of  men.  And  I  believe  it  can  be 
made  to  appear,  that  the  constitution  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  is  equally  founded  in  scripture,  Jind  in  the  nature  of  the 
human  mind.  The  apology,  founded  on  two  publications  that  have 
recently  appeared  in  the  city  of  New-York,  shall  be  particularly 
considered  in  my  next  address. 

A  Layman  of  the  Efiiscofial  Churclu 


For  the  Albany  Centinel, 
THE  LAYMAN.    No.  IIL 

X  PROCEED  to  consider  the  charge  brought  against  the  Episco- 
pal Church  founded,  particularly,  on  two  publications  that  have 
recently  appeared  in  the  city  of  New-York.  Extracts  from  these 
publications  are  introduced  in  the  tv/elfth  number  of  the  Miscel- 
lanies ;  and  in  a  way  calculated,  I  fear,  to  excite  the  passions  of 
the  public.  I  think  I  have  a  right  to  find  much  fault  with  the  lan- 
guage employed  in  ushering  the  works,  so  severely  complained  of, 
into  public  notice.  It  is  of  a  nature  to  kindle  indignant  feelings, 
and,  of  course,  to  preclude  a  dispassionate  consideration  of  the 
case  on  which  uur  aulUcu-  fcuiids  the  jublificaliou  of  his  present  con- 


LAYMAN.    No.  Iir.  51 

duct.  There  is,  also,  too  much,  far  too  much  of  exultation,  at 
least  for  so  early  a  stage  of  the  controversy.  It  might  have  been 
well  to  have  postponed  this  to  the  moment  of  victory.  At  all  events, 
it  should  have  been  deferred  until  something  like  a  regular  systent 
of  reasoning  had  been  presented  to  the  consideration  of  the  public. 
Positive  assertion  is  easily  made.  There  is  no  difficulty  until  you 
enter  upon  the  business  of  proof.  When  I  see  a  man  exult  in  the 
prospect  of  victory,  almost  before  he  has  had  time  to  arrange  his 
force ;  or,  represent  the  arguments  of  his  opponents  as  "  scarcely- 
deserving  of  an  answer,"  while  he  himself  is  dealing  most  largely 
in  assertion,  I  feel  strongly  disposed  to  suspect  weakness  in  his 
cause,  and  that  he  is  endeavouring  to  compensate  for  the  want  of 
reasoning,  by  boldness  of  declaration,  and  confidence  of  manner. 
Let  me  be  permitted  to  observe,  that  those  arguments  of  which  he 
speaks  thus  lightly,  have  been  m-ged  by  men  of  the  most  distin- 
guished genius,  and  the  most  profound  erudition ;  men  from  whom 
he  will  never  know  too  much  to  learn. 

Our  author  is  quite  deceived  if  he  supposes  the  attack  upon  Epis- 
copacy to  be  alarming  to  its  friends.  While  they  court  not  contro- 
versy, I  trust  they  will  be  ever  ready  to  defend  the  rights  and  the 
doctrines  of  their  Church.  Mitres  may  strew  the  groimd.  They 
are  no  part  of  the  Episcopal  Hierarchy ;  and  it  is  much  to  be 
regretted  that  this  Avriter  will  continue  to  confound  things  that  are 
distinct ;  or,  in  treating  of  the  situation  of  the  Episcopal  Church 
here,  Vt'ill  wander  for  ever  to  the  Papacy  of  Rome.  All  this  has 
certainly  nothing  to  do  with  the  quesiicfli  under  discussion.  The 
votaries  of  the  Church  are  not  filled  with  dismay.  It  will  require 
much  more  powerful  attacks  to  impress  upon  their  hearts  the  sen- 
timent of  fear.  The  fortress  of  Episcopacy  has  never  yet  been 
stormed ;  and  I  trust,  it  will  prove  impregnable  to  every  assault 
of  the  foe. 

Let  us  proceed  to  consider  the  publicatior.s  complained  of,  and 
see  whether  they  offer  any  real  injury  or  insult  to  other  denomina- 
tions of  Christians.  In  order  to  form  a  correct  judgment  on  this 
point,  it  will  be  necessary  to  read  the  works  themselves.  The  ex-* 
tracts  are  very  shoi't,  and  it  is  impossible  from  them  alone  to 
arrive  at  a  just  conclusion.  Deductions  are  separated  from  their 
firemises,  o/u:tio-ns  {voxn  their /iroqfs,  and  consec/uciices  ivoi-n  theii' 
qualijications,  I  desire  every  one,  therefore,  who  feels  interested 
in  this  business,  to  give  to  the  publications  in  question  a  dispassion- 
ate examination ;  recollecting  always,  that  Episcopalians  are  to- 
lerated equally  with  other  denominations  in  our  country,  and 
have  the  same  i^^ht  of  maintaining,  in  decent  language,  those 
doctrines  which  they  believe  to  be  taught  by  the  oracles  of  truth. 

Let  it  be  recollected,  then,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  Compa- 
nion for  the  Altar,  and  the  Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts, 
are  intended,  solely,  for  the  members  of  the  Episcopal  Church. 
They  are  not  addressed  to  the  public  at  large ;  and  but  for  the 
severe  remarks  which  have  been  made  upon  them,  it  is  probable 
they  would  have  found  their  v/ay  into  the  hands  of  very  few  persons 
of  other  denominations.  Besides,  they  are  works  which  arc  verv 
common  in  our  Churrli,  being  designed  as  a  preparation  for,  and 
as  an  illustration  of  her  instiiutiuns  and  services.     In  truth,  the 


32  LAYMAN.    5fo.  III. 

want  of  these  publications  in  any  country  where  our  Church  existJ 
would  be  a  great  defect.  Every  Episcopalian  ought  to  possess 
them.  Into  these  treatises,  indeed,  is  incorporated  a  summary 
view  of  the  Priesthood  of  the  Christian  Church,  stating  its  powers, 
and  tracing  them  to  the  source  from  which  they  are  derived.  In 
illustrating  the  Festivals  and  Fasts,  what  could  be  more  proper  than 
to  show  the  foundation  of  tlie  authority  that  instituted  them  f  In  a 
Work  designed  as  preparatory  to  the  most  solemn  ordinance  of  our 
religion,  what  move  correct  or  inore  natural  than  to  show  the  divine 
right  of  tliat  Priesthood  at  whose  hands  it  is  received  by  the  com- 
municant !  And  if  it  be  particularly  objected  that  the  question  of 
ecclesiastical  authority  is  thrown  into  a  meditation,  let  it  be  re- 
membered that,  in  the  shape  of  a  note  or  appendix,  it  would  pro- 
bably have  received  but  little  attention,  and  that  it  is  a  subject  of 
great  moment,  involving  nothing  less  than  the  due  performance  of 
the  highest  acts  of  worship  known  to  the  Christian  dispensation. 
Bread  and  wine  have  no  intrinsic  efficacy  to  convey  the  graces  of 
the  spirit.  We  see,  in  them,  tliC  appointment  of  God ;  and  it  is 
from  this  that  they  derive  all  their  value.  The  water  of  Jordan 
had  no  peculiar  virtue  to  cleanse  the  leprosy  of  Naaman.  It  was 
the  Divine  command,  which  he  followed,  that  gave  efficacy  to  the 
spplication.  And,  certainly,  in  the  Holy  Supper,  it  is  necessary 
to  adhere  to  the  system  which  God  has  established.  Man  has  as 
much  right  to  change  the  Sacrament,  as  to  change  the  Priesthood- 
by  whom  it  is  to  be  administered.  Both  are  of  Divine  appointment; 
and  any  reasoninp;  which  Shall  prove  human  authority  to  be  compe- 
tent to  an  alteration  of  the  one,  will  prove  it  to  be  no  less  competent 
to  an  alteration  of  the  other.  These  opinions  are  most  sincerely 
entertained  by  our  Church  ;  and  to  refuse  her  the  right  of  main- 
taining them,  is  to  refuse  her  the  common  privileges  of  religious  to- 
leration. In  works,  then,  addressed  to  Episcopalians  alone,  the 
doctrine  of  their  Church  relative  to  the  Christian  Priesthood  is 
illustrated  and  enforced.  And  can  this,  in  justice,  be  made  a 
ground  of  complaint?  While  we  are  permitted  to  exist,  the  right 
cannot  be  called  in  question,  and  the  decent  exercise  of  an  admit- 
ted right  ought  not,  surel}',  to  draw  on  us  a  vindictive  attack. 

I  observe,  in  the  second  place,  that  the  discussions  contained  ia 
the  works  under  examination,  are  conducted  in  an  unexceptiona- 
ble style.  There  is  nothing  of  abuse,  of  sneer,  or  of  invective. 
The  reader  will  not,  I  hope,  form  his  judgment  on  this  point  from 
the  short  and  unconnected  extracts  that  have  been  laid  before  the  . 
public.  Let  any  candid  Presbyterian  read  the  works  themselves, 
and  I  will  venture  to  submit  it  to  his  decision,  whether  they  contain 
any  thing  more  than  a  decent  illustration  and  support  of  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Epi;  copal  Church.  It  is  not  the  manner^  but  the  mat- 
ter of  these  treatises  that  has  gi^  i  offence.  And  has  the  time  ai*- 
rived,  when  wc  are  to  be  violently  assailed  for  claiming  and  exer- 
cising the  right  of  judgment  on  a  subject  the  most  interesting  that 
can  possibly  cngnge  tlie  attention  of  the  human  mind  ?  I  trust  not. 
We  l-e!iere  that  Kjiiscopacy  is  an  apostolic  institution;  that  it  is  the 
appointed  mode  of  conveying  the  sacerdotal  power;  that  this  mode 
being  established  by  God,  can  be  changed  only  by  God;  and  that  all 
authority  ceases  the  mrmcnt  a  departure  takes  place  from  the  sys- 


LAYMAN.    No.  IIT.  3(8 

tem  ordained  for  its  transmission.  We  consider  Bishops  as  the  sue- 
cessors  of  the  Apostles,  and  as  possessing  alone  that  power  of  ordi- 
nation by  which  the  ecclesiastical  ofBce  is  continued  and  preserved. 
These  doctrines  we  maintain — we  have  a  right  to  maintain  them. 
And  no  reasonable  man  can  consider  sucli  conduct  as  giving  just 
cause  of  offence.  How  do  Presbyterians  themselves  act  in  this 
particular?  Are  they  not  in  the  continual  practice  of  illusti-atingand 
enforcing  their  distinguishing  tenets  ?  Take,  as  an  example,  the  rigid 
doctrine  of  election  and  reprobation,  which  represents  Christ  as 
having  died  only  for  a  particular  number ;  excluding  the  rest  of 
mankind  from  even  the  possibility  of  salvation.  This  is  as  obnox- 
ious to  us,  as  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy  can 
possibly  be  to  our  opponents.  And  if  they  claim  the  right  of  repre- 
senting us  as  having  departed  from  the  true  faith,  will  they  not 
allow  us  the  right  of  representing  them  as  having  departed  from  the 
true  Priesthood  !  But  you  unchurch  us.  This  is  the  grievous  com- 
plaint. It  is  this  that  raises  all  the  difficulty,  and  kindles  all  the 
resentment.  Attend  now,  for  one  moment,  to  the  situation  in  whicli 
the  Presbyterians  would  place  us,  and  the  most  unreasonable  de- 
mands which  they  make  of  us.  They  tell  us,  You  believe  it  is  true 
that  a  particular  method  of  conveying  the  sacerdotal  power  was 
established  by  the  Apostles,  and  that  this,  being  a  divine  institution, 
can  be  changed  only  by  that  high  authority  which  ordained  it.  Yoa 
consider  Episcopacy  as  the  appointed  plan,  and  conformity  to  it  aa 
a  duty  incumbent  upon  all.  These  are  your  sincere  opinions,  and 
you  have  a  right  to  entertain  them  ;  (for,  I  trust,  our  sincerity  and 
our  right,  in  this  case,  will  not  be  denied.)  But  pause — advance  not 
one  step  further — let  these  opinions  remain  for  ever  dormant  in  your 
bosoms — presume  not  to  publish  them  to  the  world,  least  the  con- 
clusions which  i^ow  from  them  may  affect,  in  public  estimation,  the 
basis  on  which  we  stand.  Perform  not  the  duty  which  you  owe  your 
people,  by  explaining  to  them  what  you  deem  an  important  part  of 
the  wliole  counsel  of  God,  least  you  should  offend  us,  in  questioning 
the  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination.  What,  then,  does  all  this, 
in  plain  English,  amount  to !  Think  not  for  yourselves — renounce 
your  opinions.  At  all  events,  venture  not,  at  the  hazard  of  our 
displeasure,  to  avow  them  to  the  world. 

Let  us  see,  once  more,  how  the  Presbyterians  act.  They  believe 
the  Priesthood,  and  the  ordinances  of  baptism,  and  the  holy  supper, 
to  be  essential  parts  of  the  Christian  dispensation.  They  consider 
baptism  as  the  only  mode  of  initiation  into  the  Church  of  Christ, 
and  as,  generally,  necessary  to  salvation.  But  do  you  presume  to 
unchurch  us?  say  the  Quakers.  Will  the  Presbyterian,  then,  five 
up  the  right  of  thinking  for  himself  on  the  important  subjects  of  the 
Priesthood,  and  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel ;  or,  of  decently  sup- 
porting the  opinions  which  he  conscientiously  entertains  ?  Can  he 
do  so  without  debasing  that  rational  faculty  v/hich  God  has  given 
him,  and  neglecting  the  important  duty  of  instructing  his  people  in 
■what  he  deems  to  be  a  most  interesting  branch  of  I'eligious  truth  ? 
He  would  say  to  the  Quakers,  We  sincerely  believe  the  Priesthood, 
and  the  ordinances  which  you  have  discarded  to  be  essential  parts 
of  the  Christian  dispensation.  We  esteem  it  a  duty  to  maintain,  in 
proper  language,  theij-  necessity.    It  is  far  from  our  inteaUon  to 


^  €.AYMAN.    No.  m. 

give  you  offence.  We  enly  claim  that  right  of  thinking  for  onv* 
selves,  and  of  inculcating  oui'  opinions  which  we  are  in  the  constant 
habit  of  exercising.  Why,  then,  may  not  our  Church  talk  to  the 
Presbyterians,  as  they  would  talk  to  the  Quakers  ?  This  is  all  that  is 
contended  for.  The  Presbyterians  have  departed  from  the  divinely 
instituted  Priesthood.  The  Quakers  have  gone  a  step  further,  and 
discarded  the  Priesthood  altogether.  In  truth,  we  cannot  maintain 
the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy,  and  admit  the  validity  of  ordination 
by  Presbyters.  The  two  things  are  utterly  inconsistent  with  each 
other.  To  condemn  us,  then,  for  questioning  the  right  of  Presby- 
ters to  ordain,  is  to  attempt  to  terrify  us  into  a  renunciation  of  our 
principles.  What  is  this  but  the  very  spirit  of  persecution  ?  To 
admit  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination  is  to  abjure  our  faith  ; 
for,  v/e  cannot  admit  it,  .and  yet  maintain  the  necessity  of  subor- 
dinate orders  in  the  ministry,  with  distinct  powers,  the  important 
prerogative  of  ordination  being  vested  solely  in  the  higher  order. 
it  is  with  real  pain  we  find  ourselves  compelled  to  inculcate  princi- 
ples leading  to  the  conclusion,  that  dissenters  from  Episcopacy  are 
■without  authority  from  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church.  But  we  cart 
never  consent  to  give  up  the  right  of  judgment,  or  of  enforcing 
what  we  suppose  to  be  taught  by  the  sacred  volume. 

Let  us  follow  the  Presbyterians  one  step  further,  and  see  how  they 
treat  that  Church,  of  whose  want  of  charity,  in  persisting  to  think 
for  herself,  they  so  loudly  complain.  Take,  as  an  example,  the 
language  of  this  very  v/riter :  "  The  Classical  or  Presbyterial  form 
ef  Church  Government  is  the  true  and  only  one  which  Christ  hath 
prescribed  in  his  word."  "  The  custom  of  having  diocesan  Bishofi* 
is  cormpt  and  injurious."  All  distinction  and  subordination  in  the 
ministry  are  declared,  in  confessions  of  faith  that  might  be  men- 
tioned, to  be  unscrifitiiral  and  antichristian.  And  this,  permit  me 
to  add,  has  been  the  habitual  language  of  dissenters,  in  every  pe- 
riod  of  their  history.  What  think  you,  then,  of  this  loud  charge 
against  the  Episcopal  Church  for  denying  the  validity  of  Presbyte- 
rial ordination  !  The  very  men  who  thus- reproach  her  hesitate  not 
i«  representing  her  system  of  government  as  corrufit^  as  unscrip~ 
t^lrat■,  as  antic hristia7r.  Indeed,  indeed,  this  is  singular  conduct ; 
presenting,  certainly,  one  of  the  rarest  specimens  of  contradiction 
that  the  anrmls  of  human  inconsistency  have  ever  exhibited.  We 
will  represent  the  Episcopal  government  as  a  corrupt  and  injurious- 
innovation.  We  will  set  up  our  own  system  as  the  only  one  which 
is  at  all  consistent  with  the  revealed  will  of  God ;  but,  beware  hovr 
you  indulge  in  that  liberty  of  speech  which  we  exercise.  Does  not 
this  look  like  intolerance  of  the  most  decided  character  ?  But  I  attri- 
bute not  this  disposition  to  the  writer  whom  I  oppose.  I  sincerely 
believe  him  to  be  free  from  the  spirit  of  persecution,  and  I  know  not 
how  to  account  for  his  conduct,  but  by  referring  it  to  the  almost  ir- 
resistible force  of  early  habit  and  prepossession.  To  this  we  are  all 
deeply  sulycct ;  and,  while  it  should  excite  us  seriously  to  examine 
our  opinions,  and  conscientiously  to  seek  for  truth,  it  should  read  to 
lis,  at  the  same  time,  a  lesson  of  foi-bearance  and  humility. 

The  subject  of  this  paper  will  be  continued  and  concluded  in  mj 
next  address. 

4  Layman  qf  the  Mpiscojial  Church*  . 


(    S5    ) 

For  the  Albany  CentineL 

MISCFXLANIES.    No.  XIH. 

J.  HE  arguments  which  the  sect  of  Episcopalians  attempt  to  draw 
from  scripture,  in  support  of  their  Bishop,  scarcely  deserve  an  an- 
swer. They  deal  chiefly  in  assertions,  without  producing  one  sub- 
stantial proof. 

It  is  presumed  "  that  the  Christian  Priesthood  is  the  completion 
Jind  perfection  of  the  Jewish  ;  and  that  as  the  latter  subsisted  under 
three  orders,  of  High  Priest,  Priests,  and  Lerites,  so  the  former  is 
constitued  under  three  orders  i*esembling  these."  It  is  asserted  "  that 
what  Aaron  and  his  sons  and  the  Levites  were  in  the  temple,  such 
are  the  Bishops,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons  in  the  Christian  Church. 
These  are  appointed  by  God  as  those  were,  and  tlierefore  it  can  be 
no  less  sacrilege  to  usurp  their  office."  Here  is  nothing  but  assertion 
of  a  veiy  extraoi-dinary  nature.  These  are  appointed,  and  those 
■were  appointed;  but  no  proof  is  exhibited  of  these  succeeding  and 
resembling  those.  Nor  is  it  said  how  far  the  model  of  the  Jewish 
Church  is  to  be  followed,  except  in  having  three  orders,  and  of  theii" 
being  appointed.  No  authority  is  quoted  from  the  New  Testament, 
■no  direction  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles  is  mentioned.* 

This  loose  and  wonderful  argument  is  answered,  merely  by  say- 
ing that  the  whole  Jewish  dispensation  was  typical,  and  was  com- 
pletely fulfilled  and  abolished  at  the  coming  of  Christ.f  "  The  hour 
Cometh  when  ye  shall  neither  in  this  mountain  nor  yet  at  Jerusalem 
worship  the  Father.  The  hour  cometh  and  now  is,  when  the  true 
worshippers  shall  worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth ;  for  the 
Father  seeketh  such  to  worship  him."  The  argument,  however, 
feeing  much  relied  upon  by  the  Romish  Church,  and  adopted  by  the 
Episcopalians,  who  have  not  dissented  from  her  as  to  the  article  of 
orders  and  ordinations,  there  is  a  propriety  in  showing  its  absur- 
«3ity.  The  Pope  finds  here  his  own  dignity.  Will  any  dare  to  dis- 
pute the  title  of  one  who  is  both  type  and  antetype — who  was  typi- 
fied by  Aaron,  the  first  High  Priest  among  the  Jews,  and  who  was 
afterwards  consecrated  by  Christ  as  his  lawful  successor?  Will 
any  one  be  so  bold  as  to  blame  the  splendour,  pomp,  and  ceremonies 
of  the  Popish  worship,  or  to  blot  one  Saint  or  Holy  day  from  the 
Calender,  not  excepting  "  Saint  Michael  and  all  Angels,"  or  "  All 
Saints  Day,"  when  the  whole  rests  on  such  a  firm  foundation  ? 

If  the  Episcopalians  would  prove  any  thing  in  their  favour,  they 
must  show  not  that  there  are  thi'ce  orders  in  the  Christian  Church, 


•  The  connection  between  tlie  Jewish  and  the  Christian  Priesthood  so 
generally  acknowledged  by  Christian  divines  is  ably  explained  and  defended 
by  the  Layman  in  his  eigluli,  and  by  Cyprian  in  his  fourth  number.  Ed. 

t  Hov/  then  was  the  Jewish  Priesthood  "  fulfilled,"  but  in  the  institution 
of  the  Christian  ;  whicli  is,  as  the  author  of  the  Companion  for  the  Altar 
obser\-es,  "  the  complctioii  and  perfection  of  the  Jewisli,"  and  resemble* 
Jt  in  its  three  ofdera  ^  ^rf. 


58  MiSCELLANrcS.    No.  XIII. 

which  is  not  disputed;*  but  that  there  is  such  an  officer  as  the  High 
Priest  was  in  the  Jewish  Church,  and  that  this  officer  is  the  order 
of  their  Bishops.  If  they  can  do  this  they  will  have  many  High 
Priests.  The  Church  of  Rome  is  far  more  consistent.  She  has 
only  one,  as  the  Jewish  nation  had ;  and  I  verily  believe,  that  if 
such  an  officer  be  now  necessary,  the  Pope  has  the  fairest  claim  of 
all  others.f  Instead,  then,  of  Presbyterians  being  charitably  ex- 
horted to  come  into  the  Episcopal  Church,  we  had  all  better  return 
to  the  Mother  Church.  The  truth  is,  the  Jewish  nation  were  one 
Church,  under  one  govei'nment,  civil  and  ecclesiastical.  Such  an 
officer  as  the  High  Priest  was  then  necessary,  and  could  exist ;  but 
now,  when  the  Church  consists  of  all  kindreds,  tongues,  and  nations, 
it  is  impossible.  The  High  Priest  was  a  type  of  Jesus  Christ,  who, 
"  by  his  own  blood  entered  in  once  into  the  holy  place;"  and  who 
*'  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession."  If  there  be  a  visible  head  upon 
earth,  the  Pope,  as  has  been  said,  is  the  man,  and  no  other.  These 
•words,  "  No  man  taketh  this  honour  unto  himself  but  he  that  is 
called  of  God,  as  was  Aaron,"  show  only,  that  he  who  is  an  officer 
in  the  Chmxh  must  derive  his  commission  from  divine  institution. 
A  Presbyterian  Minister  is  a  true  Bishop,  and  is  as  much  appointed 
by  God  as  ever  was  Aaron. j 

Among  the  Jews  the  High  Priesthood  was  by  succession  in  the 
line  of  the  first  born  of  Aaron,  and  the  rest  of  his  posterity  were 
Priests.  Where  is  the  resemblance  of  the  Episcopal  Aarons  ?  Do 
Bishops  beget  Bishops,  or  even  the  second  order  of  Priests  ?  Do 
they  resemble  one  another  in  their  dress  ?  Where  are  now  the  linen 
breeches,  the  embroidered  girdle,  the  blue  robe  with  seventy-two 
bells,  the  golden  pomegranates,  the  golden  ephod,  the  golden 
breast-plate  with  the  engraved  stones,  the  urim  and  thummim,  £cc.  ? 
Are  lawn  sleeves,  black  gowns,  and  surplices  to  be  compared  with 
these  ?  The  Episcopal  Priests  wear  what  is  called  a  cassock ;  but 
it  is  not  made  of  linen,  and  is  more  WV^c  petticoats  than  breeches.\\ 
A  Jewish  High  Priest  might  not  marry  a  widow,  while  indulgence 
in  this  respect  was  granted  to  the  other  Priests.  Is  there  any  re- 
etriction  among  the  Episcopal  orders?   A  Jewish  Priest  couM  not  be 

*  We  have  here  another  proof  of  the  consistency  of  this  author,  and  of 
the  care  and  caution  with  which  he  writes.  Does  he  not  repeatedly  assert, 
iand  constantly  maintain,  that  all  Ministers  are  on  an  equality  ?  How  then 
can  there  be  tbree  orders  of  the  ministry  ?  £d. 

•j-  As  Cyprian  very  properly  observes  in  his  fourth  number,  "  Wherever 
there  is  a  Bishop,  Presbyters,  Deacons,  and  a  people;  there  is  also  th« 
Church  of  Christ."  The  comparison  then  is  lo  be  made  between  a 
Bishop,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons,  who  constitute  the  Priesthood  of  the 
Christian  Church;  and  the  High  Priest,  Priests,  and  Lcvites,  the  Priest- 
hood of  the  Jewish  Church.  £d. 

I  How  can  the  Presbyterian  Minister  prove  that  he  is  •'  as  raucli  ap- 
jsointed  by  God  as  ever  Aaron  was  ?"  Surely  he  does  not  receive  his 
commission,  as  Aaron  did,  immediately  from  God;  and  as  to  receiving  it 
through  regular  succession  from  those  on  whom  it  was  originally  conferred 
by  the  divine  Head  of  the  Church,  this  the  miscellaneous  author  repeatedly 
disclaims  and  ridicules  !  £d. 

jl  What  confidence  can  be  placed  in  a  writer,  who^  on  sacred  subjects, 
indulges  in  such  low  knd  indecent  ridicule  !  £(i. 


MISCELL.\NIES.    No.  XTII.  87 

eohsecrated,  unless  he  was  without  bodily  blemish.  Has  the  "  House 
of  Bishops"  in  this  country  ordained  an  examination  in  this  matter? 
The  Roman  Church  is  known  to  be  careful ;  and,  in  the  article  of 
marriage,  has  arrived  at  greater  perfection  than  the  Apostle  Paul, 
for  he  indulged  a  Bishop  with  one  wife. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  proceed  in  asking  for  the  resemblance  of  the 
orders  and  their  employments  in  the  two  Churches.  Let  me  only 
remark,  1.  That  surplices  were  garments  worn  by  the  Jewish 
singers.  2.  That  the  Levites  were  consecrated  by  the  imposition 
of  the  hands  of  the  children  of  Israel.  3.  That  the  Kings  of  Israel . 
directed  the  affairs  both  of  Church  and  state.  We  read  expressly 
of  David  making  appointments  and  arrangements  for  the  perfor- 
mance of  divine  worship,  and  of  Josiah  commanding  the  High 
Priest.  I  pray  the  reader  to  attend  particularly  to  this  remark. 
The  government  of  the  Church  was  constituted  in  a  peculiar  man- 
ner, and  for  a  peculiar  end.  If  then  we  follow  the  Jewish  pattern, 
why  not  throughout  f  Why  not  have  Kings  as  well  as  High  Priests  ?* 
Why  not  have  an  alliance  of  Church  and  state  ?t  Why  not  the  civil 
and  ecclesiastical  officers  meet  in  the  same  council,  or  form  one 
court  as  in  ancient  days  ?  Here  is  the  fundamental  error  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  and  of  the  Church  of  England.  I'he  Pope  is  a 
temporal  prince.  The  same  person  is  both  King  and  Priest.  The 
King  of  England  is  the  visible  head  of  the  Church  established 
there.  The  High  Priest  and  all  the  Priests  are  subordinate  to  him. 
The  opinion  is  not  without  foundation,  that  the  mitre  and  the  crown 
are  connected ;  nor  is  the  proverb  "  no  King,  no  Bishop"  without 
meaning.|:  In  this  country  to  copy  after  the  constitution  of  the 
Church  of  England  is  unwise,  and  to  defend  this  conduct,  as  has 
been  done  in  the  late  publications  of  some  Episcopal  Ministers,  de- 
serves a  harsher  name  than  I  shall  give  it.  Hear  the  words  of  the 
Apostle :  "  But  now  after  that  you  have  known  God,  or  rather 
are  known  of  God,  bow  turn  ye  against  the  weak  and  beggarly 
elements,  whereunto  ye  desire  again  to  be  in  bondage."|j 

•  Because  God  has  appointed  only  Priests  under  the  Christian  dispensi- 
tion.  i:d. 

f  Because  such  an  alliance  is  not  necessary  to  the  existence,  nor,  in  all 
places  or  periods,  to  the  prosperity  of  the  Church.  She  subsisted,  and  even 
flourished  for  three  hundred  years,  not  only  separate  from  the  state,  but 
persecuted  by  it.  £d. 

^  Are  the  onitre  and  the  crown  connected  in  Scotland  ?  Does  the  esta' 
tlished  Church  there  subscribe  to  the  maxirn  "  no  Bishop,  no  King?"  D3 
■not presbyterianism  ?unA  'monarchy  there  consort  together?  Why  does  not 
the  author  of  Miscellanies  send,  to  his  brother  Presbyterians  in  Scodand,  hi* 
solemn  remonstrance  against  this  unhallowed  connection  \  Kd. 

II  The  reasoning  in  this  number  is  most  profound  indeed !  Is  the  author 
of  Miscellanies  really  ignorant  of  the  nature  of  the  types  of  scripture,  or 
is  he  guilty  of  wilful  misrepresentation  ?  The  Jewish  Priesthood  is  not  typi- 
cal of  the  Christian,  because  the  comparison  will  not  in  all  respects  hold 
good  !  So  says  this  author,  who  pronounces  his  decisions  with  the  authority 
of  a  "  Master  in  Israel."  Let  us  see  now  how  his  position  will  ajjply. 
The  Lamb  sacrificed  in  the  Jewish  Passover  was  a  type  of  Jesus  Christ, 
the  true  "  Paschal  Lamb."  "  Clirist,  our  Passover,  says  the  Apostle,  is 
%iicri&ced  for  us."  No,  says  the  author  of  iMisccUanies,  the  inspired  Apos* 


(   ss   ) 

For  the  Albany  CentineL 
MISCELLANIES.    No.  XIV. 

X  HE  Apostle  Paul,  in  1  Tim.  iv.  14.  says,  "  Neglect  not  the  gift 
that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying 
on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery."  In  2  Tim.  i.  6.  he  says, 
"  Wherefore  I  put  thee  in  remembrance,  that  thou  stir  up  the  gift 
of  God  which  is  in  thee  by  the  putting  on  of  my  hands."  On  these 
two  texts  the  Episcopalians  rely  for  a  proof  of  their  mode  of  ordi- 
nation;* and  the  Presbyterians  rely  with  equal  confidence  on  them 
for  a  proof  that  their  mode  is  the  only  scriptural  one.  Let  the  pas- 
sages have  a  fair  examination,  in  connection  with  some  other  parts 
of  scripture. 

I  have  avoided  reading  any  commentator  or  writer,  in  order  that 
my  judgment  might  be  free  from  bias.  I  desire  to  have  no  other  ob- 
ject in  view  than  truth,  and  I  pray  that  the  same  Spirit  who  indited 
the  word,  may  lead  me  into  its  real  meaning. 

In  the  first  text  the  Greek  words  dia  and  meta  are  both  used,  the 
one  translated  by  and  the  other  with.  "  By  prophecy,  with  the  lay- 
ing on,"  8cc.  In  the  second  text,  dia  alone  is  found.  "  Bij  the 
putting  on,"  8cc.  Much  depends  on  giving  these  words  their  due 
force. 

The  Episcopalians  allege  either  that  the  Presbytery  which  or- 
dained Timothy  consisted  of  a  number  of  Apostles,  or  that,  if  of 
Presbyters,  they  imposed  hands  with  Paul,  "  not  to  convey  autho- 
rity., but  merely  to  exfiress  afifirobatio7i ;  and  that,  "  in  the 
Church  of  England,  the  Presbyters  lay  on  their  hands  with  the 
Bishops  in  ordination,  to  denote  their  conse7it."  The  latter  is  their 
Strong  ground ;  for  they  cannot  prove  that  this  Presbytery  was  an 
assembly  of  Apostles  ;t  and  if  they  could,  the  consequence  would  be, 

tie  is  surely  in  an  error ;  for  who  will  presume  to  trace  a  resemblance  in 
the  most  minute  points  between  a  Lamb  and  the  Saviour  of  the  world  ! 
How  should  the  profane  thank  this  sacred  critic  for  the  weapon  with  which 
he  furnishes  them,  to  turn  the  sacred  writings  into  ridicule,  and  to  destroy 
entirely  all  typical  analogy  !  The  reader,  in  perusing  the  numbers  of  the 
Miscellanies,  will  often  have  occasion  to  inquire,  where  are  the  good  sense, 
the  accuracy,  the  Christian  moderation,  the  manly  dignity,  the  honest  can- 
dour  that  should  characterise  one  who  discusses  an  important  religious  topic  ? 
Surely  the  cause  must  be  a  bad  one  that  cannot  be  defended  but  by  weapons 
such  as  this  author  uses.  Ed. 

*  The  Episcopalians  do  not  rely  on  these  two  texts.  They  rely  on  the 
powers  of  ordination  vested  exclusively  in  Timothy  and  Titus,  the  Gover- 
nors of  the  Churches  of  Ephesus  and  Crete.  Let  any  man,  dismissing  all 
prejudices  and  preconceived  opinions,  and  attending  not  to  nmnes,  but  to 
yacts  and  pertons,  read  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  and 
see  whether  he  does  not  vest  them,  as  a  distinct  order  from  the  other  Minis- 
ters of  the  Church,  with  those  powers  which  from  them  were  handed  down 
to  their  successors,  called,  after  the  Apostolic  age,  Bishops.  Ed. 

•)■  Neither  can  this  author  prove  that  this  Presbytery  was  an  assembly  of 
Presbyters  properly  so  called ;  for  Presbytery,  attending  solely  to  the  meaning 
cf  lUc  word,  denotes  an  as^embl/  oioUnten,'  and,  of  course,  may  be  vart- 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  XIV.  S» 

iRat  the  Apostles  called  themselves  Presbyters,  and  acted  only  as 
«uch  in  the  ordination  of  Timothy.  If  Apostles,  why  was  it  necessary 
that  more  than  one  of  them  should  lay  on  his  hands?*  Why  does 
Paul  particularize  his  own  hands  ?  Had  not  all  the  Apostles  equal 
authority  and  power  ?  Since  then  it  is  certain  that  there  were  more 
hands  imposed  than  those  of  Paul,  the  conclusion  is  natural,  that  if 
Apostles,  they  considered  themselves  in  this  transaction  only  as 
Presbyters,  and  therefore  all  of  them  laid  on  hands.  The  argu- 
ment then  turns  against  Episcopalians,  and  in  favour  of  Presby- 
terians. 

I  apprehend  that  the  obvious  interpretation  of  the  texts,  and  tha 
way  in  which  they  are  easily  reconciled  is  this ;  that  the  imposition 
of  hands  to  which  the  Apostle  refers  in  his  second  Epistle,  was  at 
a  different  time  from  the  ordination  of  Timothy,  or  if  at  the  same^ 
time,  was  for  a  different  purpose.  The  setting  Timothy  apart,  or 
giving  him  authority  to  exercise  the  office  of  a  Minister  in  th© 
Church,  was  "  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery;"  the 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost  were  conferred  upon  him  "  by  the  putting 
on"  of  Paul's  hands.  This  I  verily  believe  to  be  the  true  meaning. 

It  is  very  immaterial  whether  Paul  put  his  hands  twice  upoa 
Timothy  J  once  at  his  ordination,  and  again  when  the  Holy  GhosC 
■was  given  him  ;  or  Avhether  both  purposes  were  answered  at  the 
same  time.  The  latter  seems  the  more  probable  of  the  two  froir* 
the  words  in  the  first  Epistle — "  The  gift  which  was  given  thee  by 
prophecy,  ivith  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery;"  tha* 
is,  together  with,  or  at  the  time  of  thine  ordination  to  the  ministry. 
At  least  if  this  gift  of  prophecy  was  not  conferred  upon  Timothy 
in  the  act  of  his  ordination,  it  would  appear  to  have  been  conferrecl 
immediately  afterwards,  by  the  imposition  of  Paul's  hands  alone. 
In  this  way  the  word  meta  has  its  just  force.  When  it  governs  the 
genitive  case,  as  in  the  place  before  us,  it  signifies  tog-ether  nvithy 
and  may  be  thus  translated.  See  Matt.  ii.  3  and  11.  "  He  Avas 
troubled,  and  all  Jerusalem  with  him."  They  saw  the  young  child 
•tuith  Mary  his  mother."  In  this  sense  it  is  used  by  the  purest  Greek 
•writers.  Take  only  one  instance  from  Plato :  "  Geeras  meta  pe- 
nias;"  that  is,  old  age  ivith,  or  together  nvith  fioverty, 

A  careful  attention  is  to  be  paid  to  the  Vford  /irvfihecy,  by  which 
is  to  be  understood  one  of  the  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Spirit.  "  To 
another,"  says  the  Apostle,  "  the  working  of  miracles;  to  another 
prophecy  ;  to  another  discerning  of  spirits."  This  is  the  gift  which 
tlie  Apostle  exhorts  Timothy  to  exercise,  as  well  as  all  the  extraor- 
dinary gifts  of  the  Spirit,  and  which  were  conferred  upon  him  whea 
he  was  set  apart  to  be  an  officer  in  the  Church. 

If  any  incline  to  think,  that  /iro/ihecy  means  here  only  authority 
to  perform  the  ministerial  office,  and  that  this  was  conveyed  by 

ously  applied.  The  absurdity  and  fallacy  of  the  singular  interpretation  which 
this  antlior  gives  of  these  texts,  are  so  ably  exposed  by  the  Layman  in  his 
fifth  number,  that  any  obsei-vations  here  are  unnecessary.  JEd. 

*  As  the  Layman  very  properly  observes,  "  One  of  them  may  hav« 
conveyed  the  sacerdotal  authority,  while  the  rest  may  have  imposed  hands 
to  give  additional  solemnity  to  the  .transaction,  ^nd  as  ^^n  expression  of 
conc.unens*  in  jhe  sdsption  of  chj^ractcr."  Ed. 


m  LAYMAN.    No.  rv. 

"  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,"  the  word  meta  will 
bear  them  fully  out.  It  signifies  not  only  with,  but  by,  by  mca7is  ofy 
and  has  the  same  sense  as  dia  with  the  genitive  case.  It  is  thus 
used  in  Acts  xiii.  17.  "  With  an  high  arm  brought  he  them  out  of  it." 
Acts  xiv.  27.  "  They  rehearsed  all  that  God  had  done  nvith 
them."  Who  does  not  see  that  it  signifies  in  these  places  by,  and 
Blight  have  been  thus  translated  ?  It  could  be  shown  that  it  is  used 
in  this  way  by  Demosthenes,  Thucydides,  and  Xenophon,  who  will 
surely  be  allowed  to  have  understood  Greek.  The  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  Presbyters  was  more  than  C07iciirrcrice,  than  ap}iro~ 
bation,  or  than  consent.  It  was  an  actual  conveyance  of  ministerial 
authority.  So  that  in  whatever  way  the  text  is  explained,  it  does 
not  serve  the  Episcopalians.  To  say  that  meta  has  never  the  same 
meaning  with  clia,  and  that  it  may  not,  on  examples  from  the 
New  Testament,  and  from  the  greatest  Grecian  orators  and  histo- 
rians in  the  world,  be  construed  as  synonymous,  is  to  show  ignor- 
ance of  the  nature  of  the  language. 

I  prefer,  however,  the  interpretation  which  I  have  given»that  by 
profihecy  is  meant  an  extraordinary  gift,  which  was  conferred  upon 
Timothy  at  the  time  the  Presbytery  ordained  him.  This  is  the  gift 
to  which  the  Apostle  refers  in  both  texts.  In  his  second  Epistle, 
■where  he  says,  "  by  the  putting  on  of  my  hands,"  he  does  not  allude 
to  the  ordination  at  all.  Let  any  one  read  the  verses  foregoing,  and 
following  the  text,  and  he  may  see  that  oi-dination  was  not  there  in- 
tended. The  Apostle  had  wholly  a  different  object  in  view,  as  Avill 
be  shown  before  this  subject  is  dismissed.  Indeed  it  appears  to  me, 
that  he  had  the  same  object  in  view  in  both  places,  and  the  manner 
of  the  ordination  is  mentioned  to  show  the  time  when  the  gift  was 
conferred,  and  to  bring  to  remembrance  a  very  solemn  transaction. 
If  the  words  are  not  taken  in  this  sense,  we  cannot  collect  from 
them  that  Paul  was  even  present  at  the  ordination  of  Timothy, 
■which  will  be  still  worse  and  worse  for  the  Episcopahans.  If  they 
have  no  other  proof  than  his  saying,  that  he  put  his  hands  on  Ti- 
mothy, it  is  not  sufficient ;  because  this  was  for  a  quite  diflerent 
purpose.  Not  to  give  them  unnecessary  trouble,  I  will  admit,  in  the 
mean  time,  that  he  was  present ;  that  he  presided  at  the  ordination  ; 
that  he  laid  on  his  hands  as  a  Presbyter ;  and  his  fellow  Presbyters 
laid  on  hands  with  him.  This  is  exactly  Presbyterian  ordination. 
The  subject  Avill  be  continued  in  my  next  number. 


For  the  Albany  Centinel* 
THE  LAYMAN.    No.  IV. 


I 


HAVE  said  that  the  extracts  from  the  works  under  examination 
are  not  given  in  such  a  manner  as  to  present  a  fair  view  to  the  rea- 
der ;  and  that  the  conclusion  to  which  they  are  calculated  to  conduct 
him,  is  wide  of  the  truth.  The  author  of  the  Companion  for  the 
Altar,  and  of  the  Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts,  has  only 
exercised  that  right  of  judgment  which  the  Presbyterians  take  very 
good  care  to  exercise  themselves.    It  is  not  necessary  to  say  an/ 


LAYMAN.    No.  IV.  41 

thing  relative  to  the  character  of  this  gentleman,  in  reference  to 
those  who  have  the  happiness  of  knowing  him  ;  but  I  feel  it  to  be  a 
duty  which  I  owe  to  the  cause  of  truth,  to  observe,  that  he  possesses 
qualifications  both  of  mind  and  of  heart  that  are  rare  indeed,  and 
that  cannot  be  too  highly  valued  or  admired.  Far,  very  far  from 
his  temper  is  the  spirit  of  censoriousness.  To  be  acquainted  with 
him  is  always  to  esteem  and  love  him.*  Let  his  works  be  candidly 
examined,  and  it  will  be  seen  that,  while  he  maintains  the  doc- 
trines of  his  Church,  in  their  full  extent,  he  undertakes  not  to 
judge  the  members  of  other  denominations.  In  proof  of  this,  I 
would  beg  leave  to  submit  to  the  reader  a  few  passages,  which 
ought,  in  candour,  indeed,  to  have  been  presented  by  the  gentleman 
who  has  thought  proper  to  complain  in  a  style  of  so  much  bitter- 
ness. "  The  Judge  of  the  luhole  earthy  hidced,,  will  do  right.  The 
grace  of  God  quickens  and  animates  all  the  degenerate  children  of 
^dam.  The  mercy  of  the  Saviour  is  eo-extendve  with  the  ruin 
into  which  sin  has  plunged  mankind.  And^  in  every  nation,  he 
that  feareth  God,  and  workcth  righteousness,  is  accrjited  of  him.'* 
Again,  "  Sefiaration  from  the  prescribed  government  and  regular 
Priesthood  of  the  Church,  when  it  proceeds  from  involuntary  and 
tmavoidable  ignorance  or  error,  we  have  reason  to  trust,  will  not 
intercept,  from  the  humble,  the  penitent,  and  obedient,  the  bles~ 
sings  of  God's  favour."  Still  further,  "  The  important  truth 
which  the  imiversal  Church  has  uniformly  mai7itained,  that,  to  ex- 
perience the  full  and  exalted  efficacy  oj  the  sacraments,  we  must 
receive  them  from  a  valid  authority,  is  not  inconsistent  with  that 
charity  which  extends  mercy  to  all  who  lahowr  under  involuntarij 
error."  Once  more,  "  But  though  we  presume  to  judge  no  ma?iy 
leaviiig  all  judgment  to  that  Being  who  is  alone  qualified  to  make 
allowance  for  the  ignorance,  invincible  prejudices,  imperfect  rea- 
soning, and  mistaken  judgments  of  his  frail  creatures  ;  yet,  it 
must  not  from  h:mce  be  concluded,  that  it  is  a  matter  of  indiffer- 
ence, whether  Christians  communicate  with  the  Church  ornot ;  or 
that  there  is  a  doubt  upon  the  subject  of  sc/iiam,  whether  it  be  a 
sin  or  not." 

Such  is  the  language  of  the  works  under  examinntion  ;  and  such, 
also,  is  the  language  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  Will  the  writer  iu 
question  require  more  ?  Is  he  ready  to  express  sentiment:;  of  greate? 
charity  ?  Will  he  admit  that  the  grace  necessary  to  repentance  is 
given  to  all  men  ?  and  that  even  the  virtuous  heathen  will  be 
saved? 

Are  we  to  give  up  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  because  the  Soci- 
nians  have  denied  it  ?  Are  we  to  lay  aside  baptism  and  t!ie  holy 
supper  because  the  Quakers  have  discarded  them  ?  Are  we  to  le- 
Bounce  the  doctrine  of  the  corruption  of  man,  and  of  the  ab:iolute 
necessity  of  the  operations  of  the  divhie  Spirit  to  begin,  to  carry 
on,  and  to  perfect  the  work  of  sanctiftcation,  because  some  of  the 
followers  of  Armiuius,  departing  from  the  tenets  of  their  master, 

•  These  remarks  appear  evidently  dictated  by  the  too  partial  spirit  of 
friendshijj.  The  author  of  the  works  iu  question  however  ouj'jlit  certainly  to 
consider  himself  much  indebted  to  the  Layman  for  the  uble  vindication  of 
tliosc  works  from  the  charges  brought  against  them.  £d. 

G 


42  LAYMAN.    No.  IV. 

have  denied  the  principle,  asserting  the  capacity  of  man  to  turn, 
of  himself,  unto  God,  and  be  saved  i  We  shall  continue  to  declare 
tiie  necessity  of  receiving  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel  at  the 
hands  of  a  Priesthood,  which  has  derived  authority  from  Christ  by 
succession,  in  which  way  alone  it  can  be  derired,  whatever  abuse 
may  be  heaped  upon  us  for  so  doing.  While  we  undertake  to  judge 
no  man,  we  shall  persist  in  thinking  for  ourselves,  and  in  inculcat- 
ing, in  decent  language,  whatever  we  suppose  to  be  a  part  of  the 
"whole  counsel  of  God. 

Let  it  be  supposed,  for  one  moment,  that  a  secession  should  take 
place  from  the  Presbyterians ;  the  Seceders  setting  up  an  adminis^ 
iration  of  ordinances  by  mere  laymen.  Would  not  our  author  op- 
pose this,  and  represent  it  as  a  departure  from  the  plan  of  salva- 
tion detailed  in  the  scriptures  of  truth?  Would  he  not  warn  his 
people  against  being  concerned  in  the  schism  ?  Surely  he  would. 
It  vv'ouM  be  his  duty  to  do  so.  And  how  unjustly  would  he  think 
liiuiiielf  treated,  if  assailed  by  a  newspaper  invective,  for  exercis- 
ing an  undoubted  right,  or  rather  for  discharging  an  important 
obligation  ?  If  this  gentleman  then  considered  it  necessary  to 
defend  the  opinion  which  he  holds  on  the  subject  of  ecclesiastical 
government,  what  course  of  conduct  did  propriety  require  him  to 
pursue  ?  I  answer ;  he  should  have  given  the  subject  a  regular  ex" 
amination,  respecting  in  others  that  right  of  judgment  which  he 
claims  for  himself.  In  this  Episcopalians  v/ouid  have  seen  no 
cause  of  complaint ;  but,  in  the  place  of  this,  he  commences  a  vin- 
dictive attack  in  the  public  prints ;  a  measure  that  can  be  defended 
on  no  principle  either  of  policy  or  justice. 

From  the  way  in  which  this  writer  speaks,  a  stranger  would  be 
lead  to  suppose  that  the  doctrine  maintained  in  the  v/orks  under 
examination  is  perfectly  novel.  How  great  his  surprise,  upon 
being  informed  that  the  Church  has  contended  for  it  in  every 
period  of  her  history  !  This  has  been  the  case  particularly  in  the 
United  States.  Let  me  beg  leave  here  to  refer  the  reader  to  a 
very  instructive  account  of  the  life  of  Doctor  Samuel  Johnson,  the 
first  President  of  Columbia  College,  in  New-York,  written  by  the 
late  worth}'  and  learned  Dr.  Thomas  B.  Chandler,  of  New- Jersey.* 
In  this  work  will  be  seen  a  most  interesting  exhibition  of  the  effect 
produced  by  a  regular  investigation  of  the  subject  of  Episcopacy, 
with  a  single  view  to  the  discovery  of  truth.  Dr.  Johnson  was, 
perhaps,  the  moht  learned  man  that  this  country  has  produced.  In 
hlni  was  eminently  united  profound  genius,  with  the  most  laborious 
and  persevering  application  to  study.  He  was  educated  as  a  Con- 
gregational Alinister,  and  officiated  in  that  capacity  for  some  time  ; 
but  ins  attention  being  called  to  the  subject  of  ecclesiastical  goveni- 
ment,  he  entered  upon  it,  under  a  deep  conviction  of  duty,  perse- 
vering in  the  inquiry  until  he  had  viewed  the  matter  in  every  point 
of  light,  and  had  collected  all  the  information  which  the  scriptures 
or  books  could  supply.  The  result  was  a  most  decided  belief  in  the 
divine  institution  of  Episcopacy,  and  of  the  consequent  invalidity 
of  Pres!)yterial  ordination.  Several  otlier  Congregational  Clergy- 
men, of  great  talents,  and  distinguished  worth,  were  engaged  in 

•  Tills  wori;  wa:  lately  published  by  T.  Si  J.  SwoiJs,  New-York. 


LAYMAN.    No.  IV.  43 

the  investigation  with  Dr.  Johnson.  It  terminated  in  the  sair.e 
way  with  them.  They  renounced  their  offices,  went  to  Enghmd 
for  holy  orders,  and  continued,  through  life,  most  warmly  att-clied 
to  the  Episcopal  Church.  Their  example  was  afterwards  follo^vtd 
by  others;  and  I  penuude  myself  that  the  same  tuncere  investiga- 
tion would  terminate  in  the  conviction  of  almost  all  who  should 
engage  in  it. 

Would  it  have  been  just  or  decent  to  have  commenced  a  hiiler 
attack  in  the  newspapers  agamst  these  men,  for  renouncing,  un- 
tler  a  sense  of  duty,  the  ordination  which  they  had  received,  and 
taking  orders  in  the  Episcopal  Church  I  E\ery  correct  and  ingenu- 
ous mind  must  immediately  pcrceis  e  that  such  conduct  would  have 
been  improper  and  violent  in  the  extreme.  And  where  is  the  dif- 
ference between  this  and  the  course  wliich  the  writer  in  question 
has  thouglit  proper  to  pursue  ?  'lliere  is  no  difference,  and  the  con- 
duct now  is  as  intolerant  and  unjust  as  it  would  have  been  in  the 
case  I  have  mentioned. 

The  di\ine  instit\ition  of  PLpiscopacy  has  been  strenuously  main- 
tained in  this  country,  from  the  time  of  Ur.  Johnson  to  the  pro- 
>:cnt  day,  by  the  most  able  writers  of  the  Episcopal  Chuich.  In 
fact,  the  vahdity  of  Prcsbyterial  ordination  has  been  denied  from 
its  very  origin.  Calvin  himself,  the  French  Mugonots,  and  otliei- 
reformers,  justified  their  departure  from  Episcopacy  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  necessity  alone. 

The  primitive  Fathers  of  the  Church  are  most  poivitccl  arid  ex- 
press on  this  subject,  and  every  reproach  cast  upon  the  aa-.h.crofi 
the  publications  in  question  recoils  with  tenfold  force  upon  lliese  ' 
venerable  men.  Hear  i/ie  'ivords  of  Ignatius — "  He  thut  dcelh  any 
thing  without  the  Bisho/u  and  Prciby'nrs^  and  Deacons,  is  rot  puie 
in  his  conscience."  '*•  Therefore,  as  Christ  did  nothing  v.illiont  the; 
Father,  so  neither  do  ye,  whether  Deacon,  Presbyter,  or  ImUIc^ 
anything  witliout  the  Bis/n/\"  '•'•  He  that  doeth  aught  without  the 
Binhofi  serves  the  dcvi'."  VVh'Atsays  I:-enxus,  Bishop  of  L}ons,  J!\ 
the  second  century  ?  "  We  can  reckon  up  those  whom  the  Apostlf. 
ordained  to  be  Ehhofis  in  the  several  Churches,  and  to  whom  they 
committed  their  own  apostolic  auihority."  Listen  to  Tcrtutlian  of 
the  same  age — "  The  power  of  baptising  is  lodged  in  the  Bis/io/i,  and 
it  may  also  be  exercised  l)y  Freainitcra  and  Deacons;^  !;iit  not  with- 
out the  Bishop's  commission."  What  says  St.  Cyprian  of  the  third 
century  r — *'  The  Churcli  is  liuilt  on  the  Bishops,  and  all  the  acts 
of  the  Church  are  governed  and  directed  by  them  its  Prcaiclcuts.'' 
What  wi'.l  our  author  say  to  a'l  this  ?  I  am  afraid,  were  he  carefully 
to  go  through  the  primitive  Fathers,  he  would  often  iind  it  neces- 
sary t!)  i)ause,  and  compose  himself,  and  "  take  bi'eath." 

These  considerations,  then,  I  submittoan  impartial  public.  I  sub- 
mit them  to  the  gentleman  whom  I  oppose.  If  the  Episcopal  Church, 
in  suj^porting  doctrines  which  have  ever  distinguished  her,  and 
which  never,  as  she  thinks,  were  departed  from,  till  the  days  of 
Calvin,  is  obliged  to  draw  conclusions  that  nearly  affect  the  mem- 
bers of  other  persua?:ions,  she  can  only  regret  tlie  consequence  of 
vhat  her  convictions  of  duty  command  her  most  firmly  to  maintain. 
She  wii-hes  wdlto  all  men.  SliS  undertakes  to  judge  none.  Eelicvin?:; 
sincerely  that  Ep:sc:-pacy  is  a  divine  institution,  ar.d  that  ail  arc  bound 


U  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XV. 

to  conform  to  it,  can  she  be  blamed  for  urging  it  with  charitable  zeal? 
At  all  events,  can  she  be  found  fault  with  for  inculcating  upon  her 
men-bers  those  doctrines  which  she  has  professed  in  every  age,  and 
yhich  appear  to  her  to  be  an  important  pai't  of  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation ?  To  require  her  to  act  differently,  is  to  require  her  to 
become  hypocritical,  and  to  sacrifice  her  principles  at  the  shrine  of 
policy.  To  this  she  can  nev^er  consent.  While  it  will  be  her  en* 
deavour  to  treat  witii  becoming  respect  the  sentiments  of  her  fellow 
Christians,  she  must  insist  upon  the  right  of  contending  for  that  sys- 
tem of  government  which  she  believes  the  Apostles  established,  and 
whose  divinity  is  attested,  as  she  thinks,  by  the  uniform  testimony 
of  the  Church  universal  for  fifteen  hundred  years.  She  blames  not 
those  who  think  and  who  maintain  that  Presbyterial  government  is 
the  only  one  which  Christ  has  prescribed  in  his  word.  While  this 
opinion  is  supported  in  language  not  insulting  nor  disrespectful,  she 
sees  nothing  but  the  fair  exercise  of  that  right  ef  judgment  with 
which  God  has  invested  his  rational  creatures.  The  writer  upon 
whom  I  am  remarking  believes  the  divinity  of  Jesus  to  be  essential 
to  the  Christian  dispensation,  and  that  no  one  can  be  considered  as 
in  covenant  v/ith  God  who  absolutely  rejects  that  fundamental  doc- 
trine. Suppose  the  Socinian  should  loudly  complain ;  would  not 
our  author  reply  very  mucli  in  the  language  which  I  have  used  on 
.this  occasion  ?  Very  well :  while  the  Episcopal  Church  rejoices  that 
she  can  so  cordially  unite  with  her  brethren  of  the  Presbyterian 
persuasion,  on  the  essential  principle  of  the  divinity  of  our  blessed 
Saviour,  she  thinks  the  evidence  of  Episcopacy,  from  the  scripture, 
and  from  history,  no  less  strong ;  and  the  justification  which  our 
author  would  urge,  in  relation  to  the  Socinian,  she  humbly  hopes 
she  may  apply  to  her  own  conduct. 

Passing  over,  for  the  present,  what  has  been  said  on  the  Jewish 
Priesthood,  I  proceed  to  the  remarks  upon  the  Epistles  to  Timothy, 
much  reliance  appearing  to  be  placed  on  them.  I  flatter  myself  I 
shall  be  able  to  support  the  interpretation  I  have  given,  and  to 
show  that  the  observations  of  the  writer  take  for  granted  what  must 
e\'er  require  proof,  and  advance  hypotheses  that  are  entirely  new, 
being  as  unsupported  by  commentators  as  by  the  plainest  maxims 
of  construction. 

ji  Laijman  of  the  Episcopal  Church. 


I 


For  the  Albany  Centinel. 
INIISCELLANIES.    No.  XV. 


HAVE  admitted  in  my  last  number,  for  the  sake  of  giving  Epis- 
copalians more  than  their  due,  that  Paul  was  present  at  the  ordina- 
tion of  Timothy ;  that  he  presided,  and  laid  on  his  hands  with  the 
Presb)  ters.  But  I  coritend  that  in  the  ordination  itself,  he  acted 
merely  as  a  Presbyter  ;  and  that  it  was  in  conferring  the  miracu- 
lous gifts  that  he  acted  as  an  Apostle,  and  was  superior  to  the 
t)ther  Presbyters.  Since  both  dia  and  nicla  are  used  in  the  same 
Acrse,  the  former  connected  mi\\ prophecy,  and  the  latter  with  the 


JVIISCELLANIES.    No.  XV.  45 

laying  on  of  hands,  I  am  of  opinion  that  the  best  translation  of 
the  latter,  in  this  place,  is  together  with  ;  and  that  the  conferring 
the  miraculous  gifts,  and  the  setting  apart  to  the  ministry,  are  to  be 
considered  as  two  distinct  things,  which  took  place  either  at  the 
same  time  or  the  one  immediately  succeeded  the  other.  "  Bij  pro- 
phecy ;"  that  is,  by  the  act  v/hich  conferred  prophecy;  the  thing 
signified  being  put  for  the  sign.  The  sign  was  the  patting  on  of  the 
Apostle's  hands,  which  was  done  in  the  ordi nation 4and  the  gift  then 
conf«rred,  Paul  acting  both  as  an  Apostle  and  a  Presbyter ;  or,  the 
Apostle  put  his  hands  singly  on  Timothy  either  just  before  or  after 
his  oi-di nation.  The  words  dia  and  meta  are  thus  allowed  respec- 
tively an  appropriate  meaning;  though  the  latter,  as  has  been 
shown,  might  also  be  translated  by,  and  signifies  often  the  same 
thing  as  dia.  The  thing  signified  by  putting  on  of  the  Apostle's 
hands,  was  ftrophecy,  the  very  gift  which  Timothy  is  exhorted  not 
to  neglect,  but  to  stir  ufi. 

The  Episcopalians  allege  that  the  text  in  the  second  Epistle, 
where  the  Apostle  speaks  of  putting  on  hands,  refers  to  ordination- 
Let  the  context  be  examined.  2  Tim.  i.  5,  6,  7.  "  When  I  call 
to  remembrance  the  unfeigned  faith  that  is  in  thee,  which  dwelt 
first  in  thy  grandmother  Lois,  and  thy  mother  Eunice,  and  I  am 
persuaded  that  in  thee  also.  Wherefore  I  put  thee  in  remem- 
brance, that  thou  stir  up  the  gift  of  God,  which  is  in  thee  by  the  put- 
ting on  of  my  hands.  For  God  hath  not  given  us  the  spirit  of  fear ;  but 
of  power  and  of  love,  and  of  a  sound  mind."  Where  is  there  any 
thing  aI)out  ordination  ?*  Nothing  but  the  words,  by  the  fiutting  on 
uf  my  handr,,  could  have  suggested  the  idea.  The  text  is  a  better 
proof  that  the  Apostle  confirmed  Timothy,  than  that  he  ordained 
him.  The  Episcopalians  would  be  wiser  to  quote  it  for  what  they 
call  the  "  Apostolic  rite  of  confirmation,"  which  is  done  too  by  put- 
ting on  of  their  Bishop's  hands  ;  for  the  practice  of  such  confirma- 
tion needs  itself  some  confirmation.\  I  barely  mention,  without 
laying  much  weight  upon  it,  that  the  word  dia  is  used  here  ;  the 
same  word  which  is  connected  with  firo/ihecy  in  the  first  Epistle ; 
and  therefore,  that  this  is  the  gift  which  was  conferred  by  the  put- 
ting on  of  the  Apostle's  hands. 

The  interpretation  which  I  have  given  is  strengthened  by  con- 
sidering other  passages  of  scripture.  Acts  viii.  11,17.  "When 
the  Apostles  which  were  at  Jerusalem  heard  that  Samaria  had  re- 
ceived the  word  of  God,  they  sent  unto  them  Peter  and  John. 
Then  laid  they  their  hands  on  them,  and  they  received  the  Holy 
Ghost."     Acts  xix.  6.     "  And  when  Paul  had  laid  /lis  hands  ufion 

*  There  is  as  much  aliout  ordination  here  as  in  the  other  text.  The  ex- 
presiions,  "  Stir  up  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,"  and  "  neglect  not  the  gift  that 
is  in  thee,"  have  evidently  the  same  meaning.  Ed. 

f  Does  the  author  of  Miscellanies  recollect  that  confirmation  is  a  rite 
handed  down  frnm  the  Apostles'  times;  that  Calvin  himself  bore  decided 
testimony  in  its  favour;  and  that  Cai.vx.v  and  Beza  both  refer  to  it  the 
imposition  of  lianiis  mentioned  by  the  Apostle  in  the  sixth  chapter  and 
seeond  verse  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews?  If  he  is  in  doubt  on  the  sub- 
ject, let  him  peruse  the  nineteenth  chapter  and  the  fourth  book  of  Caiiiin's 
Institutes;  and  the  co.mrucnc  oi  Calvin  and  Beza  on  tiic  verss  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Helwews.  Ed. 


46  MISCELLANIES.    Ko.  XV. 

them^  the  Holy  Ghost  came  on  them,  and  they  spake  ivith  tonnes 
^nd  firo/ihesied."  No  one  will  say  that  these  converts  were  ordained 
to  be  officers  in  the  Chuixh.  'I'he  Episcopalians  endeavour  to 
prove  by  the  texts  their  practice  of  confirmation.  Is  it  not  evi- 
dent that  the  purpose  for  which  the  Apostle  laid  on  hands  was  to 
confer  the  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Spirit  ?  "  IVieij  spake  nvit/i 
tongues  and  prophesied.*  If  this  is  undeniable  from  those  places  in 
the  Acts,  why  should  not  the  text  in  the  second  Epistle  to  Timothy 
be  understood  in  the  same  manner?  AU  upon  whom  the  Apostles 
laid  their  hands  were  made  partakers  of  extraordinary  gifts  in  a 
greater  or  less  degree.  There  never  was  an  exception.  It  could 
not  be  the  saving  and  ordinary  influences  of  the  spirit  which  they 
conveyed,  because  these  had  been  enjoyed,  or  were  supposed  to 
be  enjoyed  by  persons  before  they  were  ijaptised.f  Simon  the  sor- 
cerer, who  was  baptised^  but  not  regenerated^  would  not  have 
offered  the  Apostle  Peter  money  to  obtain  the  power  of  confei-ring 
the  Holy  Ghost,  had  there  been  nothing  more  tiian  what  was  ordi- 
nary and  secret.|  It  is  true  that  all  wlio  were  baptised  did  not  ex- 
ercise extraordinary  gifts  ;  nor  did  the  Apostles  lay  hands  on  all ; 
but  on  whomsoever  they  did  lay  hands,  these  gifts  invarial)ly  fol- 
lowed. Witli  respect  to  those  at  Ephesus  upon  whom  Paul  laid 
his  hands,  we  are  expressly  told,  that  "  they  spake  ivit/i  tongues 
and  prophesied. ' ' 

Thus  have  I  cai'efully  examined  the  passages  in  the  Epistles  to 
Timothy,  and  the  result  is,  1.  That  in  one  the  Apostle  refer.s  both 
to  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  ordination  ;  in  the  other  to  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  alone.  2.  'i'hat  the  Holy  Ghost  was  given  to 
Timothy  by  the  imposition  of  Paul's  hands,  and  that  the  ordination 
or  setting  apart  to  the  ministry  of  the  word  was  by  the  imposition 
of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery.  3.  That  these  were  performed  at 
the  same  time,  or  immediately  succeeded  one  another.  4.  That 
though  the  Greek  word  nieta,  when  it  governs  the  genitive  case,  has 
equal  meaning  and  force  with  dia,  and  may,  on  the  highest  autho- 
rity, be  translated  Sy  ;  yet  in  this  place,  together  ivith  is  to  be  pre- 
ferred. 5.  That  even  the  presence  of  Paul  at  the  ordination  of 
Timothy  cannot  be  inferred  VT-ith  certainty  from  the  words,  '<  the 
putting  on  of  my  hands,"  seeing  they  refer  to  tlr;  conveyance  of 
extraordinary  powers.   6.  That  so  far  as  Paul  was  actually  engaged 

*  Is  it  said  that  the  Samaritan  converts  "  s])ake  with  tongues  and  prophe- 
sied I"  This  author  asserts,  but  does  not  pr('ve,  "  that  all  upon  wlioin  the 
Apostles  laid  thxir  hands  were  made  partakers  of  extraordinary  gifts."    Ed 

f  But  are  there  not  difl'erent  degrees  of  grace .'  And  may  not  these  be 
conferred  at  different  times,  and  in  different  ordinances?  Ed. 

\  Simon  had  received  "  the  washing  of  regeneration,'"  but  not  "  the  re- 
veviing  of  tlie  Holy  Ghost;"  which  are  considered  by  the  Apostle  as  dis- 
tinct. By  his  baptism  Simon  was  translated  into  a  nevj  state,  in  which  he 
received  coyuUtionallv  a  title  to  tlie  blessings  of  the  Christian  covenant;  and 
ia  liiis  sense  he  was  yc^cnercicd.  Eegeneraticn,  in  the  sense  of  scripture 
and  the  primitive  Church,  is  distinct  from  renovation,  or  the  change  of  mind 
and  heart  eflcctcd  b\  the  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  the  former 
term, in  its  appropriate  signification,  is  applied  to  baptism;  which  is  the  di- 
vinely instituted  m>  an  of  translating  us  from  our  natural  state  into  a  state 
of  grace,  in  ^vll;ch  we  are  to  "  worl;  cut  our  salvation."  £d. 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  XVL  47 

In  the  ordination,  separately  considered,  he  laid  on  his  hands  as  a 
mere  I'resbyter ;  and  tliat,  probably,  he  presided  among  his  fellow 
Presbyters  on  the  occasion. 

W'Tien  a  person  is  to  be  ordained,  the  Presbyterians  appoint  a 
Minister  to  deliver  a  sermon,  another  to  preside,  and  another  to 
give  a  charge  to  the  person  when  ordained.  Someiinies  two  or 
all  of  tliesc  services  may  fall  to  the  same  member  of  the  Presby- 
tery ;  but  generally  they  are  divided.  The  Minister  who  presides 
explains  Ijriefly  the  nature  of  the  Ijusiness,  receives  the  vows  of  the 
candidate,  and  then  by  solemn  prayer  and  imposition  of  hands,  the 
Presbyters  laying  on  hands  together  with  him,  the  person  is  or- 
dained, or  invested  with  the  sacred  office.  The  same  power  which 
the  Presbyters  possess  they  convey.  They  have  no  apostolic 
power,  and  they  convey  none.  They  are  Presbyters,  or  Pastors, 
or  Bishops  and  Governors  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  they  invest 
others  with  the  same  office.  Acting  by  the  authority  of  Clirist  and 
his  Apostles,  what  they  have  received  they  "  commit  to  faithful 
men."* 


I 


For  the  Albany  Centinel. 
MISCELLANIES.    No.  XVL 


HAVE  not  forgotten  m.y  promise  of  an  extract  from  the  re- 
markable meditation  for  the  "  Saturday  evening"  preceding  the 
communion,  in  "  A  Companion  for  the  Altar,"  &c.  But  having 
lately  read  a  pamphlet  entitled,  "  An  Address  to  the  Ministers  and 
Congregations  of  the  Presbyterian  and  Independent  Persuasions 
in  the  United  States  of  America,"  it  will  be  useful  to  furnish  my 
readers  with  a  few  short  extracts  from  this.  It  was  printed  in  1790, 
and  is  ascribed,  on  good  authority,  to  the  late  Bishop  Seafniry.  His 
design  professedly  is  to  persuade  those  whom  he  addresses  to  for- 
sake their  schismatic  courses,  and  join  the  Episcopal  Churcli,  as 
being  the  only  true  Churcli. 

"  She"  [the  Episcopal  Church]  says  the  writer,  "  supposes  that 
Presbyterians  and  Independents  have  departed  from  the  true  go- 
vernment of  Christ's  Church,  and  are  essentially  deficient  in  the 
matter  of  ordination.  Unless  the  Presbyterians  can  be  prevailed 
on  to  give  up  this  point,  ali  my  labour  is  lost,  and  my  hopes  are  at 
an  end,"  p.  43.  Again,  "  VVhoever  needlessly  breaks  this  unity, 
by  departing  from  this  communion,  [the  Episcopal  Church]  that  is, 
when  he  could  continue  in  it  without  sinning  against  God,  is  guiltv 
of  schism,  and  ought  to  repent  of  his  wickedness,  and  return  to  the 

*  And  v.'hat  is  it  which  tbese  "  PrPsbytcrs,  or  Pastors,  or  Bishops," 
have  "  received,"  and  which  rhey  "  commit  to  faidiful  meu  :"  Without  doubt, 
this  author  means  the  viinhterial  commission.  And  how  can  they  receive 
this  commission  from  "  Christ  and  his  Apostles,"  by  whose  "  authority" 
lie  says  thr^y  act  ?  Certainly  in  no  (jther  way  than  by  uninterrupted  succes- 
sion. Here  we  have  ano'her  example  of  the  coTsistency  of  this  gentleman, 
of  the  care  and  consideration  wirli  whic)i  he  write..  At  one  time  he  ridi- 
cules the  doctrine  o^  cuccety.ioi;  at  anoiher  he  nialres  i:  the  foundatioa  of 
all  hit  reasonings.  ii. 


.48  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XVL 

Church  of  Christ  from  which  he  has  strayed."  p.  50.  Again,  "  Let 
me  ask  the  gentlemen  for  whose  benefit  these  chai-itable  efforts  are 
principally  intended,  why,  if  they  can  effect  a  re-union  with  the 
Church  on  reasonable  and  liberal  terms,  and  in  her  bosom  do  vway 
the  odious  imputation  of  schism,  and  obtain  valid  orders  for  their 
Ministers,  they  should  not  do  it  ?  Many  of  their  Ministers,  as  well 
as  people,  must  have  doubts  and  misgivings  of  mind  concerning 
their  ordination.  It  is  their  misfortune  too  that  those  doubts  and 
misgivings  are  well  founded."  p.  51.  Again,  "They  may  put  a 
bold  face  on  the  business,  and  think  to  brave  it  out ;  and  as  they  first 
assumed  the  title  of  Presbyters,  and  the  style  of  Reverend,  so  they 
may,  in  imitation  of  Dr.  Stiles  and  his  brethren  of  Connecticut, 
usurp  the  title  of  Bishops,  and  it  may  be  the  style  of  Right  Reverend 
(pray  who  then  would  be  Reverend  ?)  it  will  all  end  like  those  plays  of 
children  which  they  call  make-believe.  Their  doubts  and  misgiv- 
ings will  continue,  and,  like  a  perpetual  blister,  keep  them  for  ever 
uneasy  and  wincing.  The  people  will  see  it  and  laugh.  They  see 
it  already ;  and  the  number  of  those  who  return  to  the  Church  is 
daily  increasing.  Think  me  not  censorious ;  my  words  are  the  words 
of  truth  and  candour."  p.  52.  Again,  "  You  ask.  Have  we  no  au- 
thorized Ministers  ?  no  valid  sacraments  ?  To  these  questions,  I  fear 
I  shall  return  disagreeable  answers.  You  have  Ministers  of  the 
people,  I  confess ;  and  if  I  may  be  allowed  to  make  a  supposition 
(and  I  have  made  a  good  many  without  any  leave  at  all),  I  must 
suppose,  that  such  as  your  Ministry  is,  such  is  your  sacraments."  p. 
52.  Again,  "  Most  of  the  original  settlers  to  the  southward  had 
never  separated  from  tlie  English  Church.  If  many  of  their  de- 
scendants have  done  so,  it  has  been  owing  to  the  arts  and  example 
of  the  Presbyterians  of  New-England,  and  of  their  new-fangled 
brethren  of  Mr.  John  Wesley's  mission.  Mr.  Wesley,  in  his  dotage, 
being  eighty-two  years  of  age,  a  certain  Dr.  Coke  prevailed  on  him 
to  confer  the  Episcopal  character  on  him  the  said  Coke.  This 
was  done  privately  at  Bristol."  p.  54.  I  shall  produce  only  one  ex- 
tract more  at  this  time.  "  You  would  give  up  an  ill-founded  Church 
government,  and  an  unauthorized  Ministry  and  sacraments,  and  you 
would  obtain  a  government.  Ministry  and  sacraments,  according  to 
the  institution  of  Christ,  the  example  of  his  holy  Apostles,  and  the 
practice  of  the  primitive  Church,  in  its  purest  period.  You  would 
give  up  an  unjustifiable  separation,  and  heal  a  breach  which  the  in- 
temperate zeal  of  your  forefathers  made  in  the  unity  of  Christ's 
Church.  You  would  get  rid  of  extempore  prayers  in  public  wor- 
ship," &c.  p.  54. 

Such  is  the  language  which  the  Bishop  uses  when  persuading  men 
to  join  the  Episcopal  Church.  One  would  think  that  he  might  have 
found  what  was  more  conciliatory,  and  more  likely  to  have  produced 
the  effect  which  he  professes  to  have  had  in  view.  I  have  given  his 
words  merely  to  show  the  haughty  pretensions,  and  imperious 
tempers  of  these  men,  who  with  benevolence,  candour  and  charily  in 
their  mouths,  contemn,  ridicule,  and  abuse  their  fellow  Christians.* 
A  Bishop  sets  the  example,  and  a  Priest  soon  apes  his  superior, 

*  In  jiidgine;  of  the  extracts  from  this  performance,  tlie  reader  shoukl 
take  into  consideration  the  circumstance  that  the  minds  of  Episcopalians  in 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  XVI.  '  49 

The  Metliodists,  though  they  have  "  Episcopal"  in  the  style  of 
their  Church,  yet  are  not  acknowledged  by  the  right  Episcopalians 
,  as  of  their  generation.  The  Bishop  informs  us,  that  Mr.  VVesley, 
when  he  had  got  into  his  dotage,  was  persuaded  by  Dr.  Coke  to  or- 
dain him  a  Bishop.  In  this  I  confess  Mr.  VVesley  was  wrong;  and 
■whether  in  his  dotage  or  not,  he  had  lived  long  enough  to  know, 
that  he  could  not  confer  a  power  which  he  did  not  possess.  If  three 
Bishops  of  the  true  Episcopal  Chui'ch,  descending  in  an  uninter- 
rupted line  from  the  Apostles,  must  unite  their  efforts  to  consecrate 
one  like  themselves,  how  vain  in  Mr.  Wesley,  a  Presbyter,  a  Chris- 
tian Bishop,  singly  to  think  of  anointing  a  High  Priest  I  This  was 
neither  Episcopal  nor  Presbyterian  ordination.  I  wonder  most  at 
Dr.  Coke,  who  could  not  l)e  in  his  dotage,  in  requesting  and  sub- 
mitting to  such  a  thing.  He  would  have  been  more  excusable  in 
applying  to  some  Romish  Bishop,  or  to  some  Bishop  in  the  line  of 
succession  from  Rome  ;  for  then  he  would  have  been  on  an  equality 
with  the  Bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  they 
would  not  have  dared  to  thrust  him  out  of  doors. 

Though  I  do  not  pity  him  and  his  Clergy,  yet  I  think  the  usage 
hard.  He  had  no  business  to  be  neighing  after  Episcopal  ordina- 
tion, or  he  ought  to  have  espoused  it  in  a  proper  manner ;  and  if. 
he  must  have  it,  I  would  recommend  him  and  Bishop  Asbury  to 
make  application  yet  to  "  the  successors  of  the  Apostles."  In 
what  an  awkward  situation  are  their  preachers  at  present !  Before 
one  of  them  could  be  admitted  to  an  Episcopal  pulpit  in  the  city  of 
New-York,  he  was  obliged  to  renounce  all  the  authority  he  once 
supposed  himself  to  have  had,  and  to  receive  orders  from  the  true 

Connecticut  were  irritated  by  the  intolerant  treatment  which  they  had  re- 
ceived. But  what  connection  has  this  pamphlet  with  tlie  other  works  of 
which  this  writer  coinplains?  There  are  no  expreKsions  in  the  Companion 
for  the  Altar,  or  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts,  wliich  authorize  the  charge 
that  the  author  of  them  "  contemns,  ridicules,  or  abuses  liis  fellow  Chris- 
tians." The  charge  is  unjust  and  ungenerous,  and  comes  witli  a  very  ill  grace 
from  a  writer  who,  in  almost  every  sentence,  casts  ridicule  and  abuse  upon  the 
Episcopal  cause  andits  advocates.  As  to  "  haughty  pretensions ;"  there  are  no 
pretensions  made  which  were  not  avowed  in  the  jjriinitive  ages  by  some  of  the 
most  humble  and  pious  men  that  ever  adorned  the  Christian  Church.  That 
advocate  for  Episcopacy  does  injury  to  his  cause  who  does  not  speak  of  his 
fellow  Christians,  who  may  difter  from  liim,  with  all  the  respect  and  esteem 
that  may  be  due  to  their  talents  and  their  virtues.  But  it  is  surely  too  much 
to  expect  that,  as  a  mark  of  his  respect  and  esteem  for  them,  he  should 
give  up  his  principles.  The  Episcopalian  only  wishes  to  be  permitted  to 
maintain  these  principles  witliout  being  accused  of  "  haughty  pretensions" 
or  "  an  imperious  temper."  It  does  not  become  a  follower  of  Calvin  to 
cast  on  others  the  charge  of  "  imperious  temper."  Mildness  and  humility 
cannot  be  ranked  among  the  conspicuous  virtues  of  this  great  man.  And* 
it  is  thought  by  many  that  it  is  the  tendency  of  the  religious  system  which  he  " 
^.-formed  to  cherish  an  austere,  self-sufficient,  and  domineering E]3iric.  y  In  trac- 
/        jng  the  coherence  among  the  systems  of  modern  theology,  we  may  observe 

that  the  doctrine  of  absolute  dccteta  has  cvt-r  been  intimately  connected  wiili  \ 
the  enthusiastic  sjjirit:  as  that  doctrine  aftbrds  the  highest  subject  of  Joy,       \ 

V  triumph,  and  security  to  the  elect,  and  exalts  them  by  injinite  degrees  above  ] 
the  rest  of  mankind."  Hume's  Etig.  Tlicre  mu3t  b«  always  n)any  excep-  / 
tioiis  to  all  general  remarks  of  this  sort.  Ed.      / 


^0  MISCELLANIES.    No,  XVL 

Churcli.  Another  residing  either  in  the  city  of  Schenectady,  of 
some  where  in  the  adjacent  country,  was  made  to  strip  off  his  M6- 
thodistical  coat,  and  to  do  penance  for  several  months,  in  a  whito 
shirt,  before  he  could  come  "  near  to  the  altar  to  minister."  These 
are  real  inconveniencies,  and  are  to  be  charged  to  the  account  of 
Dr.  Coke.  He  being  called  a  Bishofi,  and  his  Church  jE/iiscofialf 
young  men  are  deceived,  and  not  one  in  ten  of  them  ever  disco- 
vers the  mistake.  Had  not  the  preachers  alluded  to  had  more 
than  common  reading  and  common  genius,  they  would  have  floun- 
dered on  through  life. 

One  reason,  no  doubt,  why  the  Methodists  are  treated  so  cava- 
lierly is,  that  Messieurs  Coke  and  Asbury,  "  in  imitation  of  Dr. 
Stiles  and  his  brethren  of  Connecticut,  have  usurped  the  title  of 
Bishops,"  and  the  Episcopal  dignitaries  are  afraid,  that  the  style 
of  "  Right  Reverend"  will  be  usurped  next.  So  far  as  I  know,  they 
need  not  be  jealous  and  fearful  on  these  points;  for  the  Presbyte- 
rians at  least  covet  neither  their  ordination  nor  their  titles  as  used 
by  them.  Presbyterian  Ministers  are  indeed  the  Bishops  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  they  have  no  superiority  over  one  another, 
but  what  talents,  learning,  piety,  and  usefulness  give.* 

POSTSCRIPT. 

As  the  leaders  of  that  small  portion  of  professing  Christians  cal- 
ling themselves  Episcopalians,  and  setting  themselves  up  for  the 
only  true  Church  in  the  United  States,  appear  to  have  read  par- 
tially, so  I  have  thoughts  of  having  reprinted  "  The  divine  right 
of  Presbyterian  ordination  asserted,  and  the  Ministerial  authority, 
claimed  and  exercised  in  the  established  Churches  of  New-Englandj 
vindicated  and  proved :  in  a  Discourse  delivered  at  Stanford, 
Lord's-Day,  April  10,  1763,  by  JVoah  Welles,  A.  M.  Pastor  of  a 
Church  of  Christ  there."  This  performance  has  lately  been  put 
into  my  hands.f  It  consists  of  seventy-eight  pages  octavo.  The 
writer  has  handled  his  subject  with  ability,  and  in  a  manner  which 
must  aflFord  conviction  to  every  unprejudiced  inquirer  after  truth. 

It  seems  that  before  the  Revolution  the  Episcopalians  used  the 
same  unjustifiable  language  as  now.  "  Had  our  Episcopal  neigh- 
bours," says  Mr.  Welles,  "  been  contented  with  the  peaceable 
unmolested  profession  of  their  own  peculiar  principles,  I  never 
should  have  thought  of  introducing  this  subject  into  the  pulpit,  much 
less  of  publishing  my  sentiments  upon  it.  But  the  restless  endea- 
vours of  some  among  them,  to  draw  away  persons  from  our  com- 
-munion,  and  their  unwearied  attempts  to  increase  their  party,  by 
constantly  insinuating  to  you,  the  danger  of  continuing  in  fellowshii> 
with  Churches  in  which  (as  they  would  bear  you  in  hand)  there  is 
no  authorized  Ministry,  no  regular  gospel  administrations ;  at  last 
convinced  me,  that  it  was  high  time  something  should  be  publicly 
offered  for  your  satisfaction,  on  this  important  point." 

•  And  hnd  Timothy  and  Titus  no  superiority  over  the  other  Minister* 
of  Ephesus  and  Crete  but  what  "  talents,  learning,  piety,  and  usefulness 
give  I"  Ed. 

■j-  An  answer  to  this  pamphlet  was  published,  written  by  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Learning,  »n  Episcopal  Clergyman  of  Connecticut.  EU. 


(     SI     ) 

For  the  Albany  Ccntinet. 

THE  LAYMAN.    No.  V. 

A  HE  Remarks  on  the  Jewish  priesthood,  I  confess,  surprise^ 
me.  They  are,  certainly,  of  a  very  singular  nature ;  proving,  if 
they  prove  any  thing,  that  there  is  no  sort  of  connection  between 
the  Old  and  the  New  Testament.  This  shall  be  fully  shown  when 
I  come  to  the  subject  in  the  regular  course  of  the  investigation. 

I  proceed,  in  the  meantime,  to  the  observations  on  the  Epistles 
to  Timothy,  upon  which  observations  no  little  reliance  appears  to  be 
placed.  The  writer  would  have  it  supposed  that  Episcopalians 
lay  much  stress  on  the  passages  in  question.  Not  so.  They  rely 
upon  tho.  ^}oivers  which  Timothy  extrcised,  not  upon  the  manner  of 
his  ordination  ;  and  all  they  do  on  this  point,  is  to  show  that  there 
is  no  evidence  from  scripture  of  the  ordination  being  after  the  Pres- 
bytcrial  mode.  Our  opponents,  knowing  full  well  that  the  state 
of  things,  in  the  Church  of  Ephesus,  gives  no  sort  of  countenance 
to  their  doctrine,  take  care  to  be  as  silent  as  possible  upon  it ;  go- 
ing always  to  the  passage  in  the  first  Epistle  to  Timothy,  and 
setting  that  up  as  the  great  bulwark  of  their  cause.  In  this,  they  ■ 
act  wisely,  since  the  structure  of  the  passage  gives  them  an  oppor- 
tunity of  dwelling  on  the  term  Presbytery  ;  it  being  on  terms  alone 
that  their  whole  argument  is  grounded.  The  rules  of  just  reason- 
ing, then,  obviously  require  the  Presbyterians  to  prove  that  the  pas- 
sage in  question  establishes  their  mode  of  ordination.  They  rely  upon 
it  as  proof.  Episcopalians  do  not ;  resting  their  cause,  in  reference 
to  Timothy,  upon  the  poAvers  which  he  exercised  in  that  Church 
of  which  he  was  the  spiritual  governor.  All  that  is  incumbent 
upon  us,  therefore,  is  to  show  that  the  words  of  Paul  to  Timothy 
prove  nothing  for  the  opposite  cause ;  and  it  will  be  recollected 
that  I  took  this  ground  expressly  in  my  first  address  to  the  pub- 
lic. Let  our  author  prove,  then,  that  the  Presbytery  spoken  of 
■were  nothing  more  than  Elders  or  Presbyters,  in  the  sense  in  which 
these  terms  are  now  used.  Until  he  does  this,  the  passage  will 
avail  him  nothing.  True,  we  cannot  prove  absolutely,  that  they 
wei*e  Apostles,  although  we  think  this  much  the  most  rational  in- 
terpretation ;  especially  when  it  is  considered  that  the  practice  of 
Presbyters  uniting  with  Bishops,  in  the  imposition  of  hands,  has  ne- 
ver prevailed  in  the  Gi-eek  Church,  and  was  not  introduced  into  the 
Western  until  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  century.  This  is  a 
strong,  indeed  I  may  say  a  conclusive  circumstance  to  prove  that 
the  Presbytery  spoken  of  were  members  of  a  superior  order  who 
laid  their  hands  on  Timothy,  in  connection  with  Paul ;  and  such  is, 
accordingly,  the  interpretation  put  upon  the  passage  by  some  of  tl;e 
most  judicious  commentators.  And  here  let  it  be  briefly  added, 
that  there  is  not  a  single  example  to  be  produced  from  scripture,  or 
from  the  whole  history  of  the  Church,  before  the  days  of  Calvin,  of 
an  ordination  by  any  but  an  order  of  Ministers  superior  to  the  El- 
ders, who  officiated  in  the  clerical  character  at  Ejjhesus  and  other 
places.  While  our  Saviour  remained  upon  earth,  he  alone  com- 
Tyissioncd  persons  to  act  ia  his  uumc.    This  po'ivcr,  iuimediatc^y 


52  LAYMAN.    No.  V. 

before  his  ascension,  he  gave  to  the  Apostles ;  and,  let  it  be  recol- 
lected, that  he  gave  it  to  them  alone.  They,  accordingly,  ordained 
the  seven  Deacons  of  Jerusalem,  and  Paul  and  Barnabas  ordained 
Eldei's  in  every  city.  In  these  cases,  the  Apostles  who  were  the 
Governors  of  the  v/hole  Church,  both  Clergy  and  Laity,  alone  per- 
formed tlie  act  of  ordination.  No  Presbyters  or  Elders  were 
united  with  them.  These  circumstances,  taken  in  connection  with 
the  ^ate  introduction  of  the  practice  of  Presbyters  joining  with 
Bishops,  in  the  imposition  of  hands,  prove,  as  far  as  moral  evidence 
can  prove  any  thing,  that  the  Presbytery,  or  Church  officers  men- 
tioned in  the  Epistle  to  Timothy,  were  of  the  order  of  the  Apostles. 
All  that  is  necessary  to  us,  however,  is  to  show  that  there  is  no 
evidence  of  the  Presbytery  being  mere  Elders ;  for,  until  this  point 
is  unequivocally  established,  the  cause  of  parity  can  receive  no  sort 
of  support  from  the  passage.  And  as  to  the  word  Presbytery,  it 
signifies  Church  officers,  Eldermen,  or  men  of  authority ;  and, 
therefore,  may  as  well  mean  Apostles  as  an  inferior  order. 

Again,  Jerome  and  Calvin,  both  of  whom  the  advocates  of  parity 
are  fond  of  quoting,  give  a  construction  to  the  passage  in  question 
•wliich  comj)letely  puts  down  all  that  our  author  has  said  upon  it. 
They  understand  the  Apostle  to  say  to  Timothy,  "  Neglect  not  the 
gift  of  the  Priesthood,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the 
la}'ing  on  of  hands  ;"  making  the  term  Presbuterion  refer  to  the  of- 
fice of  a  Priest  or  Church  Governor,  bestowed  on  Timothy,  not  to 
the  manner  in  which  he  was  ordained.  And  the  powers  of  office 
are  to  be  ascertained  from  the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  Timothy,  in  which 
he  is  addressed  as  the  Spiritual  Governor  of  the  Clergy,  as  well  as 
of  the  Laity  of  Ephesus.  I  barely  mention  the  opinion  of  Jerome 
and  Calvin  here,  to  show  how  very  feeble  is  the  aid  to  be  derived 
to  the  s}'stem  of  parity  from  the  word  so  much  relied  upon  in  the 
passage  under  consideration. 

There  is  still  another  way  in  which  all  support  to  the  Presbyte- 
rian cause,  from  this  passage,  is  destroyed.  Paul  was  present  at 
the  oi'dlnation.  Well,  then,  according  to  the  hypothesis  even  of 
this  writer  himself,  superior  and  inferior  orders  united  in  the  ordi- 
nation of  Timothy,  which  is  very  different  from  the  Presbyterian 
system.  Here,  however,  we  are  again  assailed  with  the  artillery 
of  words.  True,  Paul  laid  his  hands  on  Timothy  ;  but  he  did  it  as 
a  Presbyter.  Yes,  he  laid  on  his  hands  as  a  Cliurch  Governor, 
which  is  the  meaning  of  Presbyter ;  but  that  he  laid  on  his  hands  as 
an  officer,  on  a  perfect  level  with  the  Elders  of  Ephesus,  is  an  as- 
sertion which  I  utterly  deny,  and  which  has  never  been  even  at- 
tnvfitcd  to  be  proved  by  the  only  evidence  worth  attending  to,  the 
evidence  of  facts.  How,  then,  is  it  proved  ?  Why,  the  term  Pres- 
byteiy  is  used  ;  which  is,  doubtless,  demonstration  itself.  It  is  high 
time  that  this  sort  of  reasoning  were  given  up.  Paul  is  nothing  more 
than  an  Elder  of  Ephesus,  at  the  ordination  of  Timothy,  because  a 
general  term,  signifying  eldcr^  or  grax>e  mcn^  or  men  of  authority, 
is  used.  What  will  not  this  mode  of  reasoning  prove  ?  Christ  is  called 
D.'akonos,  whicii  is  translated  a  Deacon,  or  Minister.  Therefore, 
Christ  was  on  a  level  with  the  Deacons  of  Jerusalem.  Prcsbuteroa 
signifies  an  elder  man ;  whence  comes  the  term  Alderman.  By 
this  new  species  of  logic,  it  might  be  proved  that  the  Apostles  were, 


LAYMAN.    No.  V.  53 

to  all  intents  and  purposes.  Aldermen,  in  ilic  civil  acceptation  of 
the  term  ;  and  that  every  Alderman  is,  really'and  truly,  an  Apostle. 
Eliezer,  the  steward  of  Abraham's  house,  is  called  Presbutcros, 
and,  of  course,  Avas  a  Presbyter,  in  the  same  sense  in  which  the 
term  is  applied  to  the  Elders,  whom  Paul  and  Barnabas  ordained. 
The  Judges  appointed  by  Moses  with  power  over  thousands,  and 
hundreds,  and  fifties,  and  tens,  are  called  Prefbuferot,  and  must, 
therefore,  have  been  Apostles.  Cicero  was  saluted  by  the  Roman 
army  with  the  title  of  Imperator.  Therefore  Cicero  held  the  same 
ofSce  with  Augustus  Cxsar.  And  we  might  he  told,  in  the  same 
way,  that  the  thi'ee  consuls  of  France,  before  the  establishment  of 
the  empire  by  Bonapai'te,were  nothing  more  than  commercial  agents. 
How  vain,  how  superlatively  vain  is  this  reasoning  from  names  ! 
Surely  a  woi*d  cannct  be  mentioned  that  is  not  used  in  different 
senses ;  and  the  sense  which  it  is  designed  to  convey  in  a  particular 
case,  must  ever  depend  upon  the  circumstances  of  that  case.  The 
powers,  not  the  titles  of  office,  are  the  great  objects  of  attention. 
Paul,  in  laying  hands  on  Timothy,  did  it  as  a  mere  Elder  of  Ephe- 
sus,  or  of  any  other  place,  because  he  is  sometimes  called  Presbu~ 
terosy  that  is,  a  ruler,  an  elder,  or  grave  man,  or  man  of  autho- 
rity.    Let  this  be  remembered. 

To  admit  that  Paul  laid  on  his  hands  at  the  ordination  of  Timo- 
thy, is  to  admit  that  it  was  not  a  Presbyterial  ordination.  For  Paul 
was  an  Apostle,  and  exercised  power  over  Elders.  In  other  words, 
he  was  of  a  superior  order.  And  this  is  not  to  be  answered,  let  me 
assure  the  gentleman,  by  saying  that  the  term  Presbytery,  signify, 
ing  Church  officers,  is  used.  I  would  submit  it  to  any  candid  man  of 
the  denomination  to  which  tliis  writer  belongs,  whether  the  perpe- 
tual attempt  to  darken  the  subject,  by  dwelling  on  terms  of  a  gene- 
ral signification,  does  not  completely  prove  that  the  cause  of  parity- 
has  nothing  but  words  to  rest  on.  Paul,  in  laying  hands  on  Timothy, 
is  on  a  level  with  that  order  of  Elders  which  he  was  in  the  continual 
habit  of  directing  and  governing,  because  he  is  called  Presbuteros, 
that  is,  a  Church  officer,  a  grave  man,  or  man  of  authority,  I  re- 
peat it,  let  this  be  remembered. 

We  perceive  the  same  mode  of  proceeding  in  %vhat  our  author 
says  relative  to  the  Greek  terms  dia  and  incta,  an  attempt  to  cover 
the  weakness  of  his  cause  under  the  ambiguity  of  words.  It  is 
known  to  every  Greek  scholar,  that  dia  signifies,  emphatically,  the 
cause  of  a  thing ;  while  vieta  denotes,  emphatically,  nearness  of  si- 
tuation, relation,  connection,  agreement.  It  need  not  be  observed 
that  words  are  used  sometimes  more  loosely,  and  sometimes  more 
strictly.  A  term  is  often  introduced  in  a  sense  different  from  its 
original  and  primary  meaning.  The  two  words  dia  and  meta  are 
opposed  in  the  Epistles  to  Timothy.  Well,  then,  the  two  words 
being  opposed,  and  the  first,  as  every  Greek  scholar  knows,  denot- 
ing, emphatically,  the  cause  of  a  thing;  the  latter  conveying,  par- 
ticularly, the  idea  of  relation,  connection,  agreement,  it  follows, 
obviously,  that  they  are  to  be  taken  in  these  their  appropriate  senses. 
Our  author  will  not  venture  to  say  that  the  Greek  word  7)ieta  is  as 
appropriate  an  one  as  dia  to  express  the  cause  of  a  thing.  He  will 
not  so  far  hazard  his  reputation  as  a  scholar.  I  assert,  then,  that 
dia  signifies,  particularly,  the  cause  of  a  thing,  and  that  meta  is  the 


S^  LAYMAN.    No.  V. 

preposition  of  concurrence.  Nor  is  this  invalidated  by  the  circum- 
stance of  meta  being  sometimes  used  as  dia  with  the  genitive  case. 
The  emphatical  distinction  between  the  two  words  lies  in  the  first 
denoting  a  cause,  the  other  concurrence.  Why  does  St.  Paul  care- 
fully use  the  word  dia  in  the  one  case,  and  meta  in  the  other.  Why 
does  he  not  use  meta  in  both  cases  ?  It  is  to  be  recollected  too,  that 
the  passages  are,  in  his  Epistles  to  Timothy,  relating  to  the  same 
subject ;  and,  of  course,  the  terms  must  be  regarded  as  contrasted 
with  one  another.  Surely  the  words  dia  and  meta,  as  opposed,  sig- 
nify, the  first,  the  cause  of  a  thing ;  the  last,  nearness,  concurrence, 
agreement.  This  is  familiar  to  every  Greek  scholar,  and  I  assert  it 
on  the  authority  of  the  best  lexicons  of  the  language.  The  circum- 
stance, then,  of  the  Apostle  using  a  word  in  relation  to  himself, 
■which  denotes  the  instrumental  cause,  and  with  respect  to  the  Pres- 
bytery, a  word  which,  particularly  as  distinguished  from  dia,  ex- 
presses agreement,  shows,  clearly,  that  the  authoritative  power 
■was  vested  in  him,  and  that  the  act,  on  the  part  of  the  Presbytery, 
ivas  an  act  of  mere  concurrence. 

Here  it  may  be  proper  to  take  a  very  brief  notice  of  what  our  au- 
thor says  relative  to  the  two  passages  in  the  Epistles  to  Timothy, 
making  one  refer  to  the  ministerial  office,  as  well  as  to  the  supernar 
tural  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  and  confining  the  other  to  the  sufiernatwaL 
gifts  alone.  This  is  attempted  to  be  proved  from  the  context.  But 
the  context  is  as  silent  about  ordination  in  the  first  Epistle  to  Timo- 
thy as  in  the  second ;  and,  therefore,  according  to  this  mode  of 
reasoning,  the  gift  of  office  is  not  referred  to  in  either  of  the  pas- 
sages. I  have  consulted  the  commentaries  of  Hammond,  Burkitt, 
Guyse,  and  Pyle.  They  all  consider  both  the  passages  as  refeiv 
ring  to  the  gift  of  office,  as  well  as  to  the  supernatural  gifts  of  the 
Spirit;  which  shows  how  unfounded  is  the  distinction  attempted  to 
be  drawn  on  this  occasion.  In  fact,  there  is  just  as  much  evidence 
of  a  reference  to  the  ministerial  gift  in  one  passage  as  in  the  other, 
and  the  distinction  laid  down  by  this  writer  rests  on  nothing  but  his 
own  arbitrary  assertion.  It  is  impossible  to  read  liis  pieces  without 
remarking,  that  they  consist  of  hypotheses  from  beginning  to  end  ; 
hypotheses  too  which  he  very  candidly  acknowledges  to  be  entirely  his 
own,havinp;  consulted  no  commentator,lest,  indeed,  hismind  should  be 
biassed.  This  confession,  I  trust,  the  public  will  duly  appreciate  in 
judging  of  his  strange  imaginations.  The  prayer  to  the  Holy  Spirit 
for  dii'ection  would  have  been  much  more  likely  to  be  effectual,  had 
it  been  connected  with  that  use  of  means  which  ought  ever  to  acr 
company  our  petitions. 

It  is,  however,  very  immaterial  whether  the  distinction  drawn  in 
this  case  be  correct  or  not ;  for,  as  has  been  already  remarked,  wc 
rely  on  the  superior  powers  which  Timothy  exercised,  not  on  the 
manner  of  his  ordination,  although  we  think  the  evidence  of  scrip- 
ture shows  it,  beyond  all  doubt,  to  have  been  Episcojjal.  The  only 
(juestion  that  can  be  fairly  raised,  is  as  to  the  propriety  of  Presby- 
ters imposing  hands  in  connection  with  the  Bishop.  This  practice, 
however,  can  do  no  harm,  as  they  lay  on  hands  confessedly,  by  way 
of  mere  concurrence,  not  by  way  of  conveying  the  sacerdotal  au- 
thority. 

I  can  readily  believe  this  writer  when  ke  says  he  has  read  no  coni' 


LAYMAN.    No.  V.  ^5 

mentator  on  the  passages  which  he  so  strangely  interprets.    He  has 
taken  leave,  indeed,  not  only  of  commentators,  but  of  the  plainest 
maxims  of  construction.     Was  there  ever  any  thing  more  strange, 
or  more  absurd,  than  the  manner  in  which  he  understands  the  words^ 
*'  by  prophecy  "  in  the  first  Epistle  to  Timothy  ;  making  them  meaA 
the  extraordinary  gift  of  prophecy  conferred  upon  Timothy  at  the 
time  of  his  ordination.     "  J\feglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which 
was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
Presbytery."    It  might  readily  be  referred  to  any  man  of  discern- 
ment to  say  whether  this  mode  of  expression  points  at  the  gift  ot" 
prophecy  bestowed  upon  Timothy.     No.    It  was  by  prophecy  that 
Timothy  was  selected  as  a  proper  person.     The  words  refer  to  th« 
Apostle  himself.     It  was  by  prophecy  that  he  discerned  Timothy  to 
be  a  fit  character  for  the  ministe^-ial  office.     If  our  author  will  con- 
sult the  most  judicious  commentators,  he  will  find  this  to  be  the  in- 
terpretation which  they  unanimously  give.     But  the  arrangement  of 
the  sentence,  with  the  manner  in  which  the  words  are  brought  in> 
renders  it  perfectly  plain  that  they  do  not  allude  to  the  gift  bestowed 
on  Timothy,  but  to  the  way  in  which  he  was  distinguished  as  a  fit 
object  of  the  gift  to  be  bestoAved.     The  thing,  however,  is  put  out 
of  all  dispute  by  referring  to  another  passage  in  the  first  Epistle  to 
Timothy,  first  chapter,  and  eighteenth  verse.  "  This  charge  I  com' 
mit  unto  thee,  son  Timothy,  according  to  the  prophecies  ivhich  ivent 
before  on  thee."    Here  the  charge  is  spoken  of  as  committed  to  Ti- 
mothy, in  pursuance  of  prophecy  relative  to  him  ;  in  other  words, 
in  consequence  of  his  being  discerned  to  be  a  fit  character  for  the 
office,  by  means  of  a  revelation  on  the  subject  to  the  Apostle,  or  by 
means  of  the  power  of  prophecy  given  to  the  Apostle  for  the  pur- 
pose of  distinguishing  fit  characters  for  the  sacred  function.     I  have 
consulted  several  of  the  most  respectable  commentators  in  the  lan- 
guage, two  of  them  of  the  Presbyterian  persuasion ;  and  they  all 
understand  the  passage  in  the  manner  I  have  stated.    The  interpre- 
tation of  this  gentleman  has,  I  believe,  the  merit  of  novelty  ;  but  it 
is  as  strange  as  it  is  novel. 

I  shall  conclude  the  present  address  with  briefly  noticing  the  un- 
fair point  of  view  in  which  the  writer  endeavours  to  place  the, 
general  subject  before  the  public.  He  would  have  it  supposed  that/ 
Episcopalians  refer  to  names  and  words  in  support  of  their  doc- 
trine. Not  so.  We  contend  that  subordinate  orders,  with  distinct^ 
powers,  were  established  in  the  Church  by  the  Apostles  them- 
selves ;  and  this  we  prove  not  by  tlie  names  used,  but  by  the  au- 
thorities extrcised.  For  example,  Timothy  i-uled  the  whole  Church, 
of  Ephesus,  both  Clergy  and  Laity.  The  Apostle  addresses  him, 
and  him  alone,  as  the  supreme  Governor  of  the  Church,  calling 
upon  him  to  see  that  his  Presbyters  preach  no  strange  doctrine,  to 
receive  accusations  against  them,  to  try  and  to  punish  them,  if 
found  guilty.  In  all  this  the  Apostle  addresses  Timothy  alone,  and 
recognizes  in  him  a  spiritual  control  over  the  Elders  or  Presbv- 
ters,  and  Deacons  of  Ephesus.  To  say,  after  this,  that  the  Elders 
thus  ruled  by  Timotliy  had  as  much  power  over  him  as  he  had 
over  them,  because  Timothy  may  be  called  Presbuteros,  an  elder 
man,  or  man  of  authority,  is  indeed  paying  more  attention  to  nvords 
than  things.    It  is  flying  from  the  qutsliun,  and  endeavcuviag  tu 


A6  LAYMAN.    No.  V. 

create  obscurity  by  dwelling  on  the  ambiguity  of  names.  What  if 
Timothy  is  styled  Presduteros,  or  man  of  authority,  and  the  Elders 
whom  he  ruled  are  called  so  too  •  Timothy  exercised  powers  which 
they  could  not  exercise.  Timothy  governed  them.  They  wei-e 
subject  to  his  jurisdiction. 

As  to  the  business  of  ordination,  St.  Paul  says  to  Timothy,  "  T/ie 
things  that  thou  hast  heard  of'  me  among  many  ivitnessesy  the  same 
cominit  thou  to  faithful  vien,  nvho  shall  be  able  to  teach  others  also." 
To  Titus  the  Apostie  says,  "  For  this  cause  left  I  thee  m  Crete,  thai 
thou  shouldst  set  in  order  the  things  that  are  nvanting^  and  ordain 
FJders  in  every  city,  as  I  had  a/ipointrd  thee."     Here,  let  it  be 
observed,  in  passing  along,  that  Titus  is  spoken  of  as  having  been 
ordained  by  the  Apostle.     *'  As  I  had  af^liointed  thee."    Nothing 
is  said  of  the  Presbytery  in  this  case.     Paul  appointed  Titus  to  his 
office ;  and  this  is  a  conclusive  ciixumstance  for  believing  that  the 
case  was  the  same  in  relation  to  Timothy,  as  it  is  not  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  they  were  commissioned  in  different  ways. 
•^    In  whom  was  the  power  of  ordination  vested  in  the  Churches  of 
Ephesus  and  Crete  ?     Clearly  in  Timothy  and  Titus  alone.     Them 
alone  the  Apostle  addresses,  and  them  alone  he  speaks  of  as  ordain- 
ing Elders,  or  as  committing  the  things  they  had  received  I'rom  him 
to  faithful  men,  capable  of  teaching  others.     Is  not  this  utterly  in- 
consistent with  tlie  Presbyterian  system  ?    What  individual  among 
them  could  witli  propriety  be  addressed  as  the  Apostle  addresses 
Timothy  and  Titus  ?   Not  one.     The  power  among  them  is  in  a 
numerous  body  of  equals,  lest  there  should  be  "  loi'ds  over  God's 
heritage."    The  power,  in  Ephesus  and  Crete,  was  in  Timothy 
and  Titus,  to  whom  the  Presbyters  were  sulyect,  liable  to  be  tried 
and  punished  for  misconduct.     It  is  on  this  plain  statement  of  facts, 
relative  to  Ephesus  and  Crete,  as  well  as  to  other  Churches,  taken 
in  connection  with  the  uniform  and  uninterrupted  testimony  of  the 
Church  universal  for  fifteen  hundred  jears,  that  Episcopalians  rest 
their  cause.     They  have  never  endeavoured  to  derive  arguments 
from  the  names  made  use  of.     This  has  been  the  practice,  exclu- 
sively, of  the  advocates  of  parity.     Driven   from   the  ground  of 
fact,  not  able  to  deny  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  supreme  Go- 
vernors in  the  Churches  of  Ephesus  and  Crete,  possessing  alone 
the  power  of  ordination,  they  say  that  Timothy  is  called  a  Pres- 
byter, and  was  therefore  upon  a  level  with  those  very  Elders  whom 
he  ruled,  whom  he  could  control  as  to  the  doctrines  they  preached, 
whom  he  had  power  to  try  and  to  punish  ! 

Episcopalians  having  established  their  cause  upon  the  firm  ground 
of  ScrifUure  fact,  follow  the  advocates  of  parity  to  the  argument 
which  they  attempt  to  build  on  words,  and  sliow  that  it  avails  them 
nothing.  Diiven  from  this  ground  also,  they  turn  round  and  say, 
Episcopalians  can  derive  no  support  from  the  words.  They  never 
pretended  to  derive  argument  from  such  a  source.  They  would 
give  up  their  cause  at  once  if  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  placing 
it  on  such  a  basis.  They  rely  upon  the  evident  state  of  the  Churches 
of  Epliesus,  Crete,  Jerusalem,  and  otlicr  places,  as  detailed  to  us 
in  scripture,  tai;en  in  connection  with  tiic  decided  and  unequivocal 
evidence  of  primitive  history.  And  all  they  say  about  names  is  sim- 
ply to  show  tliat  they  furnish  no  aid  to  the  system  of  parity. 


THE  LAYMAN.    No.  V.  57 

The  writer  has  introduced,  from  an  address  which  he  ascribes  to 
Bishop  Seabury,  certain  passages  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the 
sentiments  entertained  by  Episcopalians  on  the  subject  of  Presbyte- 
rial  ordination.  In  this  business,  it  is  unnecessary  that  he  should 
quote  authors,  or  multiply  observatioiis,  for  the  validity  of  that 
mode  of  ordination  our  Church  finds  herself  constrained  most  ex- 
plicitly to  deny.  She  believes  that  a  particular  method  of  conveying 
the  sacerdotal  power  was  instituted  by  the  Apostles,  and  that  man 
has  no  more  right  to  change  tliis  mrtliod  of  conveying  a  divine 
authority^  than  he  has  to  change  the  holy  supper,  which  is  the 
ajifiointed  method  of  conveyin'g  a  divine  gift.  And  if  it  be  objected 
that  so  much  importance  ougl\t  not  to  be  attached  to  the  external 
polity  of  the  Church,  I  answer,  that  what  God  has  joined  together 
no  man  should  put  asunder ;  and,  that  the  same  mode  of  reasoning 
would  lead  to  speaking  lightly  of  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel.  Can 
it  be  so  important,  the  Quaker  may  ask,  to  sprinkle  water,  or  to 
take  bread  and  wine  ?  The  fact  is,  all  these  things  derive  their 
importance  fi-om  the  com?]ia7id  of  God,  and  man  has  nothing  to  do 
with  inquiring  into  tl;e  propriety  or  impropriety  of  institutions 
established  in  the  scriptures  of  truth.  They  are  objects  of  faith, 
not  subjects  of  metaphysical  investigation. 

The  validity  of  Presbyterial  ordination,  as  T  have  shown  in  pre- 
ceding numbers,  has  been  denied  from  its  origin.  And  I  believe  I 
have  made  it  appear  that  those  men  who  complain  so  much  of  the 
Episcopal  Church,  haA^e  indulged  in  a  mode  of  expression  to- 
wards her,  quite  as  free  as  that  which  she  has  herself  exercised. 
What  if  Bishop  Seabury  has  expressed  himself  in  a  manner  some- 
what severe  ?  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  present  controversy. 
Surely  our  author  does  not  mean  to  go  back  to  so  distant  a  period 
for  a  justification  of  the  bitter  newspaper  attack  which  he  has 
thouglit  proper  to  commence.  Besides,  the  whole  address  of  Bishop 
Seabury  must  be  read  beibre  a  proper  judgment  can  be  formed  of 
detached  passages.  These  may  be  greatly  softened  and  explained 
by  the  general  spirit,  and  the  obvious  design  of  tlie  discourse.  And 
since  the  gentleman  has  thought  proper  to  bring  this  matter  up,  let 
it  be  observed,  that  the  Episcopalians  of  Connecticut  had  been 
treated  in  the  most  intolerant  manner ;  which  circumstance  ought 
certainly  to  be  considered  in  determining  on  the  propriety  of  the 
style  which  Bishop  Seabury  uses.  Our  adversaries  will  find  it  their 
interest,  probably,  to  let  tliese  matters  rest. 

The  writer  wlioni  I  oppose  continvies  to  employ  a  language  much 
better  calculated  to  excite  passion  than  to  elucidate  truth.  After 
solemnly  invoking,  in  one  of  his  numl)ers,  the  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  iie  descends,  in  a  succeeding  address,  to  a  mode  of  expres- 
sion which  even  the  most  strenuous  advocates  of  his  doctrines  will 
not  justify.  There  is  something  in  the  style  of  several  numbers 
of  the  Miscellanies,  calculated  to  excite  the  warm  indignation,  not 
only  of  every  member  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  but  of  every  friend 
of  decorum  and  of  truth. 

ji  Layma7i  of  the  Eiuscojial  Church, 


(    58    ) 

■/'"or  the  Albany  CentineU 

MISCELLANIES.    No.  XVIL 

OiNCE  my  explanation  of  the  two  texts  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul  tO' 
Timothy,  I  have  read  a  few  writers  upon  them.  Two  of  these  in- 
terpret the  gift  mentioned  in  the  first  Epistle,  to  mean  the  office  of 
the  ministry,  and  that  prophecy  refers  to  Timothy  being  chosen 
and  foretold  by  the  revelation  of  the  spirit.  Thus,  in  chap.  i.  18, 
it  is  said,  "  according  to  the  prophecies  which  went  before  on  thee." 
I  shall  not  contend  for  the  interpretation  given  by  myself;  nor  is 
it  essential  in  the  argument.  Admitting  tl\at  Timothy  was  chosen 
to  his  office  by  the  "  discerning  of  spirits,"  and  that  the  gift  which 
he  was  exhorted  not  to  neglect  was  ordinary^  still  his  ordination 
•was  Presbyterian.  It  may  serve,  however,  to  corroborate  my  in- 
terpretation to  mention,  that  the  Greek  word  "  charisma"  is  ge- 
nerally used  to  signify  an  extraordinary  gift,  and  that  an  ordinary 
one  is  expressed  by  "  doi'ea"  and  "  charis."  The  gift  is  also  said 
to  be  "  en  soi,"  in  (hee,  which  cannot  be  properly  said  of  the  office* 
of  the  ministry.  Should  any  still  insist  that  the  verse  is  to  be  inter- 
preted in  connection  with  chap.  i.  18.  they  will  remark  that  the  ex- 
pression there  is  "  epi  se,"  o«  or  concerning  thee ;  and  therefore 
prophecy  in  the  one  place  may  refer  to  what  was  foretold  concern- 
ing him,  and,  in  the  other,  to  the  exercise  of  the  same  gift  in  him- 
self. Whichsoever  of  the  two  intei'pretations  is  preferred,  my  ar- 
gument remains  in  equal  force. 

One  writer  says,  "  It  is,  at  least,  higlvly  probable  that  the  impo- 
sition of  Paul's  hands  upon  Tir/iothy,  mentioned  in  the  second  Epis- 
tle, was  not  for  ordination  ;  but  at  a  different  time,  upon  a  different 
occasion,  and  for  a  different  purpose,  viz.  to  confer  on  him  the  ex- 
traordinary powers  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  that  these  powers  are 
the  gift  which  the  Apostle  exhorts  Timothy  to  stir  tip.,  u  e.  dili- 
gently to  use  for  the  end  for  v/hich  it  was  conferred  upon  him. 
This  interpretation  Avill  make  the  two  different  accounts  pei-fectly 
consistent,  Avhich  perhaps  no  other  will.  And  that  this  was  in  fact 
the  case,  may  be  further  argued  from  the  different  subjects  treated 
of  hi  the  two  places  under  consideration."  Dr.  Whitby,  a  learned 
commentator  of  tlie  Episcopal  Church,  is  of  the  same  opinion. 
"  The  gift  here  mentioned,"  says  he,  "  being  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  was  usually  conferred  by  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  an  Apostle, 
Vain  therefore  is  the  inference  of  JRsthius  from  these  places,  that 
ordination  is  a  sacrament,  seeing  the  grace  here  mentioned  is  no 
ordinary  grace,  but  an  extraordinary  gift,  conferred  only  in  those 
times  by  the  hands  of  an  Apostle,  and  now  wholly  ceased." 

As  then,  "  by  the  putting  on"  of  Paul's  liands,  mentioned  in  tliis 
place,  an  extraordinary  gift  was  conferred,  which  was  conferred 
only  by  the  hands  of  an  Aprastle,  and  this  power  is  noiu  ivholly 
ceased;  and  as,  at  the  ordination  of  Timothy,  there  was,  undeni- 
ably, the"  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,"  so  no  argu- 
ment whatever  can  be  drawn  in  favour  of  the  Episcopal  mode. 
Whoever  ordained  Timothy,  it  is  plain  that  they  did  it  not  as  per- 
sons of  a  superior  and  extraordinary  character ;  but  as  ordinary 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  XVH,  5? 

gospel  Ministers  or  Presbyters.  Could  it  be  admitted  that  Paul  re- 
fers to  tlie  ordination  of  Timothy  when  he  says  "  by  the  putting  on 
of  my  hands,"  still  he  ascribes  the  same  power  to  the  hands  of  the 
Presbytery  in  his  first  Epistle ;  and,  consequently,  there  is  the  same 
reason  to  say,  that  the  Presbytery  ordained  Timothy  as  that  Paul 
ordained  him.  If  Paul  laid  on  hands  at  the  ordination,  in  this  trans- 
action merely,  he  acted  as  a  Presbyter,  and  could  act  as  no  other. 
As  an  Apostle  he  was  superior  to  Presbyters,  and,  as  such,  has  no 
successor.  But  as  a  Presbyter,  he  could  commit  to  others  this  of- 
fice. I  will  not  say,  that  Presbyters  are  "  successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles^" because  I  think  that  such  language  savours  of  arrogance,  if 
not  of  impiety  ;  but  I  will  say  that  Presbyters  are  the  highest  order 
to  whom  the  Apostles,  by  the  authority  of  Christ,  have  committed 
the  administration  of  the  word  and  ordinances  of  the  Church.* 

I  proceed  now  to  give  another  passage  from  the  New  Testament 
more  circumstantial  than  the  last,  and  which  is  left  on  purpose  to 
guide  the  Church  in  the  important  matter  of  ordination.  It  is  re- 
corded in  Acts  xiii.  1,  2,  3.  "  Now  there  were  in  the  Church  that 
■was  at  Antioch  certain  prophets  and  teachers ;  as  Barnabas,  and 
Simeon  that  was  called  Niger,  and  Lucius  of  Cyrene,  and  Manaen, 
■which  had  been  brought  up  with  Herod  the  tetrarch,  and  Saul.  As 
they  ministered  to  the  Lord,  and  fasted,  the  Holy  Ghost  said.  Se- 
parate mc  Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the  work  whereunto  I  have  called 
them.  And  when  they  had  fasted  and  prayed,  and  laid  their  hands 
on  them,  they  sent  them  away."  In  this  passage,  let  us  attend  prin- 
cipally to  the  following  things : 

1.  The  authority  by  which  the  ordination  ■was  performed.  The 
Holy  Ghost  said.  As  the  Apostle  Paul,  under  the  immediate 
guidance  of  divine  inspiration,  directed  Timothy  and  Titus  to  or- 
dain Elders,  so,  in  the  present  case,  there  was  an  express  com- 
mand of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  was  necessary  in  the  first  examples 
of  ordination  ;  otherwise  the  practice  of  the  Church  would  rest  up- 
on the  inventions  of  men.  The  command  which  was  then  given  is 
now  our  authority,  and  the  pattern  which  was  then  set  we  must  now 
scrupulously  follow.  Though  we  have  no  immediate  inspiration, 
yet  we  have  that  which  was  dictated  by  it,  and  this  is  our  sure  and 
«nly  guide. 

•  The  author  of  Miscellanies  bestows  a  great  deal  of  labour  on  two 
texts  of  scripture,  wliich  have  never  been  much  relied  on  by  the  advocates 
^of  Episcopacy.  When  in  }>roof  of  the  power  of  Presbyters  to  ordain, 
the  text  is  quotedj  "  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  tb.e  Presbytery ;"  tlie 
Episcopalians  produce  the  other  text,  "  by  the  laying  on  o£  ony  hands,"  and 
say,  that  if  even  by  Presbytery  be  meant  a  number  of  Presbyters,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  Paul,  who  was  of  a  superior  order,  presided  and  conveyed  autho- 
rity. But,  granting  the  utmost;  the  texts  taken  together,  if  they  do  not 
prove  any  thing  for  Episcojjul  ordination,  do  not  prove  any  thing  against 
it.  And,  without  relying  on  doubtful  texts,  the  Episcopalian  finds  suHicieut 
proof  of  Episcopacy  in  the  superior  jjowers,  which  Timotliy  and  Tiius  ])0s- 
sessed  at  Ephesus  and  Crete,  of  ordaining  and  governing  the  other  orders 
of  the  ministry.  There  is  surely  nothing  of  "  arrogance  and  impiety"  in 
saying  that  Bishops  are  the  successors  of  the  Aposiles,  in  their  ordinary 
ecclesiastical  authority.  Of  this  impiety  and  urroounv.c-,  the  primitive  Far 
thers  were  habitually  guilty.  Ed. 


60  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XVII. 

2.  The  persons  ordained  were  Paul  and  Barnabas.  Sejmrafe  vie 
Barnabas  and  Saul.  Though  they  had,  before  this,  been  com- 
missioned by  Christ  as  Apostles,  yet  they  were  now  separated  or  set 
apart  to  their  woi-k.  by  the  rite  of  ordination.  We  are  assured  that 
Paul  was  called  to  be  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  "  Go  thy  way," 
said  the  Lord  unto  Ananias,  "  for  he  is  a  chosen  vessel  unto  me,  to 
bear  my  name  befoi-e  the  Gentiles."  When  he  was  about  to  enter 
upon  this  mission,  it  seeined  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  to  have  him 
and  Barnabas  set  apart  to  it.  This  is  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Taylor,  a 
Bishop  of  the  Chui-ch  of  England.  His  words  are,  "  He  [Paul]  had 
the  special  honour  to  be  chosen  in  an  extraordinary  way :  yet  he 
had  something  of  the  ordinary  too;  for  in  an  extraordinary  man- 
ner he  was  sent  to  be  ordained  in  an  ordinary  ministry.  His  de- 
signation was  as  immediate  as  that  of  the  eleven.  Apostles,  though 
his  ordination  was  not."  It  is  not  the  practice  in  the  Church,  when 
an  ordained  Minister  is  about  to  be  sent  on  a  mission,  to  use  the  same 
ceremonies  here  mentioned;  fasting,  praying,  and  imposition  of 
laands.  These  are  used  at  ordination  only ;  and  this  is  a  proof  that 
the  passage  is  universally  thus  understood.  Paul  and  Barnabas  wei'e 
set  apart  in  the  same  manner  in  which  Timothy  was  ordained,  and 
in  which  he  and  they  ordained  others.  We  must  therefore  con- 
clude with  Dr.  Lightfoot,  that  "  no  better  reason  can  be  given  of 
this  present  action,  than  that  the  Lord  did  hereby  set  down  a  plat- 
form of  ordaining  Ministers  to  the  Church  of  the  Gentiles  in  future 
times." 

3.  The  persons  who  were  the  ordainers  were  the  officers  of  the 
Church  of  Antioch.  Certain  firofi/iets  and  teachers.  Their  names 
are  given,  from  whence  it  appears,  that  besides  Paul  and  Barnabas, 
who  v/ere  the  persons  ordained,  there  wei-e  three  ;  the  number 
which,  accoi'ding  to  the  constitution  of  the  Pi'esbyterian  Church, 
form  a  Presbytery.  Whoever  these  prophets  and  teachers  were, 
they  were  all  equally  concerned  in  the  ordination.* 

The  direction  was  given  to  all,  and  all  laid  on  their  hands.  If 
the  prophets  were  superior  to  the  teachers,  it  is  evident  that  though 
Bishops  in  the  scriptural  sense,  they  could  not  hav^e  been  Bishops 
after  the  fashion  of  the  Church  of  England,  or  diocesaii  Bishops ; 
because  there  was  a  plurality  of  them.  A  diocesan  Bishop  is  of 
such  magniiude  that  there  is  not  room  for  more  than  one  in  a  city  ; 
and  he  often  fills  sevei-al  with  a  large  extent  of  country.  Let  it  be 
admitted  that  prophets  are  to  be  distinguished  from  teachers, 
docs  it  follow  that  the  former  are  a  standing  order  in  the  Church  ? 
We  may  understand  by  prophets  in  the  primitive  Church  those  who 
exercised  extraordinary  gifts,  and  the  same  persons  were  prophets 
and  teachers.  These  extraordinary  gifts  have  ceased.  But  if  any 
will  insist  that  pi-ophets  here  mean  a  standing  order  in  the  Chui-ch, 
superior  to  teachers  or  presbyters,  it  is  incumbent  on  tliem  to  prove 
that  Simeon,  or  Lucius,  or  Manaen,  was  of  this  descx-iption.    The 

*  This  transaction  is  not  considered  by  the  most' judicious  commentators 
(some  of  tliem  not  Episcopalians)  as  an  ordination,  but  as  a  solemn  desig- 
nation of  two  of  the  A])osiIt:s  to  the  exercise  of  a  particular  mission.  See 
this  point  proved  by  the  Lavman  in  his  6lh,  and  by  CAprianinliis  4th 
jiiiniber.  iV. 


CYPRIAN.    No.n.  61 

F.piscc^alians  must  have  one  Bishop  of  then*  Sort ;  and  he  ought  to 
be  a  very  conspicuous  one  too ;  for  the  pei'sons  ordained  wei'e  no 
less  than  Pavil  and  Ravnahas,  the  predecessors  (as  they  think)  of 
all  the  Romish  and  English  Bishops. 

Enough  lias  I^ecn  said  to  convince  any  candid  mind,  tliat  the 
Episcopahans  ha\c  no  ground  for  their  pretensions,  and  that  Pres- 
byterian ordination  is  scriptural,  safe  and  vahd.  Whenever  I  come 
to  examine  ecclesiastical  history  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles  down 
to  the  establishment  of  Episcopacy  in  the  isles  of  South-Britain  and 
Ireland,  the  trutJi  will  shine  with  strong  and  irresistible  light.* 


For  the  Albanxj  Ccntincl, 

CYPRIAN.    No.  II. 

,l\.FTER  what  has  been  already  said,  I  trust  we  shall  never  again 
hear  the  charge  of  popery  either  openly  or  covertly  alleged  against 
the  Episcopal  Church.  I  trust  wfe  shall  no  longer  hear  it  insinuated, 
that  our  ecclesiastical  institutions  are  not  conformable,  arc  not  as 
conformable  as  those  of  any  other  denomination  of  Christians,  to 
our  institutions  of  civil  government.  If  the  public  will  now  indulge 
me  so  far  (and  I  am  afraid  its  patience  is  nearly  exhausted)  I  will 
enter  on  a  very  brief  investigation  of  the  subject  of  Church  Go- 
vernment. 

I  shall  not  follow  the  track  of  the  Miscellaneous  writer.  This 
would  not  be  consistent  with  clearness  or  perspicuity  of  arrange- 
ment. I  shall,  however,  touch  on  all  the  principal  points  that  re- 
late to  this  subject,  contained  in  those  pieces  he  hath  lately  pub- 
lished, in  which  there  appears  even  the  semblance  of  argument. 
This  writer  seems  to  have  formed  a  very  exalted  opinion  of  his 
own  dialectic  skill.  He  commences  his  attack  on  us  quite  in  the 
gasconading  style.  Scarcely  lias  he  begun  his  hostile  operations, 
when  he  beholds  in  imagination,  "  the  outworks  of  Episcopacy 
demolished  by  him,  her  fortress  stormed,  mitres  strewing  the  ground, 
and  her  affrighted  votaries  fiying  in  dismay."  Would  it  not  have 
been  as  prudent  to  have  waited  until  the  period  of  victory  before 
he  claimed  the  privilege  of  a  triumph  ?  Really  he  must  excuse  our 
want  of  discernment,  when  we  a.vow  that  we  have  not  as  yet  been 
able  to  recognize  in  him  the  features  of  so  formidable  an  antagonist. 
We  perceive  no  just  cause  of  ajiprehension  or  alarm.  The  friends 
of  Episcopacy  fee!  not  tiie  smallest  propensity  to  fly  before  him  in 
dismay.  The  arrows  he  hatli  hithci"to  directed  against  us,  though 
empoisoned  by  much  bitterness  of  sentiment,  though  levelled  with 
his  utmost  force,  have  proved  quite  harmless  weapons.  Tlieyhave 
scarcely  reached  the  mark.  No.  This  writer  extremely  mistakes 
if  he  imagines  that  his  efforts  have  awakened  in  the  bosoms  of  Epis 
copalians,  any  degree  of  apprehension  for  the  fate  of  their  Churc' 
No.    The  fortress  of  Episcopacy  is  erected  upon  the  same  rock 

*  This   review  of  eci;lci,iastical  history  the  author  of  Miscel'iinl' 
prudently  declined. 


G2  CYPRIAN.    No.  11. 

■which  Christianity  itself  is  founded.  It  has  hitherto  stood  unshaken 
by  the  attacks  of  the  most  powerful  assailants.  It  will  not  now  be 
demolished  by  his  arm. 

Episcopacy  rests  upon  Scrijiture,  and  upon  the  testimony  of  the 
firimitive  Clnirch.  These  are  the  two  pillars  that  support  its  super- 
structure.    We  trust  they  are  immovable. 

Episcopacy  rests  upon  the  strong  foundation  of  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures. It  is  an  irrefragable  truth,  that  the  Episcopal  form  of 
Church  Government  is  the  only  one  Christ  hath  prescribed  in  his 
"word ;  is  the  only  one  which  was  knoAvn  in  the  Universal  Church 
for  fifteen  hundred  years.  Whilst  our  Saviour  remained  on  earth, 
he,  of  course,  held  supreme  authority  in  his  Church.  The  twelve 
■were  appointed  by  him  as  his  subordinate  ofiBcers.  The  seventy 
djsciples  constituted  a  still  lower  order.  There  existed,  then,  in 
the  Church  of  Christ,  at  this  time,  three  distinct  grades  of  Minis- 
ters. When  our  Lord  ascended  into  Heaven,  when  he  breathed 
upon  the  tv/elve,  and  said,  "  As  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  so  send  I 
you,"  he  transmitted  to  them  the  same  authority  which  he  himself 
had  retained  dui-ing  his  continuance  amongst  them.  The  twelve 
commissioned  their  Presbyters  and  Deacons  to  aid  them  in  the 
administration  of  ecclesiastical  government.  Before  their  death 
they  constituted  an  order  of  Ministers,  to  whom  they  conveyed  that 
supreme  authority  in  the  Church  which  was  lodged  in  their  hands 
during  their  lives.  To  this  order  of  men  who  succeeded  the  Apos- 
tles in  dignity  and  authority,  the  appellation  of  Bishops  was,  in 
process  of  time,  peculiarly  appropriated.  Ever  since  the  times  of 
the  Apostles,  this  oi'der  has  always  possessed  prerogatives  peculiar 
to  itself.  It  has  always  held,  exclusively,  the  power  of  ordination, 
the  privilege  of  communicating  the  sacerdotal  authority.  These 
are  positions  which  may  be  established  by  an  accumulation  of  evi- 
dence from  scripture  and  the  testimony  of  ancient  writers,  that  will 
-defy  all  opposition. 

But  before  I  proceed  to  bring  forward  this  evidence,  I  must  spend 
a  few  moments  in  refuting  an  objection  of  the  Miscellaneous  writer, 
■which  meets  me  in  the  threshold,  and  which,  if  it  can  be  supported, 
will  render  this  controversy  altogether  useless,  since  it  would  at 
once  strike  away  the  foundation  of  all  civil  and  ecclesiastical  go- 
vernment. He  thinks  that  the  existence  of  an  order  of  Bishops  ia 
the  Church  is  incompatible  witli  the  spirit  of  the  gospel.  He  thinks 
"  we  should  discover  more  understanding,  more  regard  to  the  sen- 
timents of  our  fellow  Christians,  more  of  the  spirit  of  the  Apostles, 
more  unlimited  obedience  to  the  injunctions  of  our  divine  Master, 
did  we  dismiss  such  aspiring  and  uncharitable  conduct.  Memorable 
•was  the  occasion,  says  he,  on  which  he  gave  a  solemn  and  affec- 
tionate charge  to  his  disciples.  Grant,  said  the  mother  of  Ziebe- 
dee's  children,  that  these  my  two  sons  may  sit,  the  one  on  the  right 
hand  and  the  other  on  the  left,  in  thy  kingdom.  She  wished  her 
two  sons  to  be  promoted  to  places  above  tlie  rest  of  the  disciples, 
and  to  be  consecrated  Archbishops  at  least.  But  Jesus  called  them 
unto  him  and  said.  Ye  know  that  the  princes  of  the  gentiles  exer- 
cise dominion  over  them,  and  they  that  are  great  exercise  authority 
upon  them,  Imt  it  shall  not  l)e  so  among  you."  Such  is  the  pas- 
sage thi;;  writer  hath  produced  in  order  to  sanction  the  idea  that  the 


\ 


CYPRIAN.    No.  II.  63 

elevation  of  our  Bishops  to  their  present  pre-eminence  in  the  Church 
is  a  violation  of  the  express  and  solemn  injunction  of  our  Saviour. 
Miserable  subterfuge  this,  indeed,  by  which  to  evade  the  force  of 
that  evidence  we  derive  from  scripture  1  Is  not  this  writer  per- 
fectly aware  that  he  is  here  endeavouring  to  mislead  the  under- 
standings of  his  readers  i  Can  he  be  otherwise  than  aware,  that 
he  is  perverting  the  scriptures  from  their  obvious  signification,  in 
order  to  answer  his  own  purposes?  Does  he  not  know  that  this 
portion  of  holy  writ  will  not  bear  the  interpretation  he  hath  given 
it  ?  Does  he  not  know,  that  to  take  it  in  so  extensive  a  sense  is  to 
make  it  speak  a  language  altogether  inadmissible  as  the  standard  of 
truth  ?  What  I  would  our  author  make  our  Saviour  prohibit, 
amongst  Christians,  the  control  of  any  constituted  authorities^ 
ecclesiastical  or  civil  ?  Would  he  make  Christ  declare  that  amongst 
his  followers  there  should  be  no  distinctions  of  rank,  no  suboj-dina- 
tion,  no  discipline?  This  is  precisely  the  interpretation  that  some 
Socinians  have  given  to  this  passage  ;  and  will  he  admit  it  to  be  a 
just  one  ?  If  it  be  admitted  in  this  unlimited  sense,  demagogue* 
and  levellers  may,  in  their  most  iniquitous  transactions,  shelter 
themselves  from  reproach  under  a  solemn  injunction  of  the  Saviour. 
This  gentleman  is  thus  placing  a  dangerous  weapon  in  the  hands  of 
his  political  adversaries.  It  is  obvious  that  Jesus  Christ,  in  this  por- 
tion of  his  word,  does  not  intend  to  interdict  the  institution  of  civil 
or  ecclesiastical  government  amongst  believers.  Besides,  if  these 
expressions  be  taken  in  this  wide  sense,  do  they  not  operate  as  mucli 
against  the  Presbyterians  as  ourselves  ?  Against  the  existence  of  one 
order  of  Ministers  as  against  the  existence  of  three  ?  May  not  a 
single  order  obtain  and  exercise  as  much  undue  authority  in  Christ's 
Church  as  three  ?  May  not  the  one  become  tyrants  as  well  as  the 
others  ?  Is  an  aristocracy  the  most  mild  and  the  least  odious  of 
governments  ?  Is  there  more  danger  that  a  government  will  dege- 
nerate into  tyranny,  when  there  is  a  wise  distribution  of  its  powers 
into  different  departments,  than  when  there  is  no  such  distribu- 
tion, when  all  its  powers  are  concentrated  in  a  single  department  ? 
In  short,  may  not  Presbytei-ian  Ministers  as  easily  as  Bishops  be- 
come "  lords  in  God's  heritage  ?" 

The  meaning  of  our  Saviour  in  the  passage  before  us  is  as  clear 
and  unequivocal  as  in  any  other  portion  of  sacred  scripture.  All 
commentators  agree  in  their  interpretation  of  it.  The  mother  of 
Zebedee's  children  had  imbibed  the  sentiment  prevalent  amongst 
the  Jews,  that  the  Messiah  would  establish  a  temporal  kingdom. 
She  sought  for  her  sons  civil  dignities  and  honours.  Jesus  Christ, 
in  his  answer,  wishes  to  repress  amongst  his  disciples  this  spirit  of 
ambition  and  vain-glory.  He  teaches  here  what  he  inculcates  in 
many  other  parts  of  his  holy  v/ord,  that  his  followers  should  not, 
covet  the  honours,  the  dignities,  the  empty  distinctions-  of  this 
world.  Those  who  would  merit  his  highest  regard,  who  would 
be  greatest  in  his  kingdom,  he  tells  them,  must  be  t«ost  distinguished 
for  acts  of  humility  and  condescension.  He  endeavours  thus  to  im- 
piess them  with  more  just  sentiments  than  they  entertained  con- 
cerning the  nature  of  his  kingdom.  He  tells  them  in  the  word* 
following,  that  they  must  do  "•  as  the  Son  of  man  who  came  not  to. 
be  ministered  unto^  but  to  minister,"    Does  not  this  last  exprcssiou 


64  CYPRIAN.    Ko.  II. 

ascertain  the  intention  of  our  Saviour  beyond  all  cavil  or  contra- 
diction ?  His  followers  must  imitate  him  in  their  meekness,  their 
humility,  their  condescension.  This  is  all  that  can  be  implied,  for 
did  our  Saviour  never  assume  or  exercise  any  power  in  his  Church? 
But  what  places  this  point  beyond  all  possible  controversy,  is  the 
conduct  of  the  Apostles,  which  must  be  admitted,  on  all  hands,  to 
be  a  good  comment  on  the  precepts  of  their  Master.  If  Christ  here 
intended  to  prohibit  the  exeixise  of  all  authority  and  power  in  his 
Church,  how  did  they  dare,  in  their  intercourse  with  believers, 
violate  the  wishes  of  their  Lord  ?  How  did  they  dare  outrage  his 
solemn  injunctions  ?  Did  they  not  take  upon  themselves  the  power 
of  ordaining  laws  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  of  carrying  their  laws 
into  execution  ?  Did  they  not  reprove,  I'ebuke,  receive  into  com- 
munion, excommunicate  with  all  authority  ?  But  the  idea  is  too 
unfounded  and  absurd  to  be  longer  dv/elt  on.  If  our  Saviour  meant 
in  this  passage  what  this  writer  Avould  have  him  mean,  how  dare 
the  Presbyterian  Ministers,  at  this  time,  assume  any  superiority 
over  the  rest  of  their  brethren  ?  Plow  dare  they  arrogate  to  them- 
selves the  power  of  performing  the  sacerdotal  functions  ?  How 
dare  they  exercise  any  ecclesiastical  authority  ?  How  dare  they 
become  '•  lords  in  God's  heritage  I"  After  what  has  been  said,  it  is 
possible  that  it  may  still  be  maintained  that  the  "  mitre  and  the 
ci*ov/n  are  connected ;"  but  I  trust  it  will  appear  tliat  there  is  no 
foundation  for  the  pi-overb,  "  No  King,  no  Bishop,"  It  seems  there 
•was  once  a  time  in  this  country  when  our  enemies  could  efl'ect  their 
purposes  by  the  use  of  such  watch-words  as  these,  that  merit  a 
harder  name  than  I  am  disposed  to  give  them  ;  but  that  time,  hap- 
pily for  us,  has  passed  away.  The  good  people  of  America  are  no 
longer  to  be  duped  and  misled  by  such  unworthy  arts.  I  now  dis- 
miss the  objection,  founded  on  this  passage  of  scripture,  I  trust, 
amply  refuted. 

I  proceed  to  establish  our  first  proposition.  That  the  three  or- 
ders of  Ministers,  Bishops,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons,  the  Bishops 
solely  possessing  the  power  of  ordination,  are  of  apostolic  original, 
is  proved  incontestaI>ly  from  the  sacred  Scriptures  themselves.  I 
shall  first  lay  down  our  arguments,  and  then  refute  the  objections 
that  have  been  made  to  them. 

Let  us  examine  the  passages  of  scripture  which  the  writer  him- 
self hath  produced,  and  see  whether  we  cannot  help  him  to  more 
legitimate  conclusions  than  those  he  hath  thought  proper  to  deduce 
from  them.  In  Titus  i.  5.  it  is  said  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  "  For 
this  caur.c  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldest  ordain  Elders  in 
every  city."  Let  us  contemplate  the  circumstances  that  attended 
this  transaction,  and  see  v^liat  inferences  v/c  can  drav/  from  it.  St. 
Paul  had  planted  the  gospel  in  the  island  of  Crete.  He  had  made 
proselytes  in  every  city  who  stood  in  need  of  the  ministrations  of 
Presbyters.  He  speaks  not  to  Titus  as  if  he  had  left  him  in  Crete 
to  convert  the  cities  to  the  faith.  He  speaks  as  if  this  work  was  al- 
ready accomplished,  as  if  the  way  was  paved  for  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Church.  These  being  the  circumstances  of  the  case, 
it  appears  to  me  that  this  transaction  carries  on  its  face  a  proof  of 
superiority  on  the  part  of  Titus  to  the  Presbyters  or  Elders.  Will 
it  be  iinagincd  by  any  reasonable  man,  that  St.  Paul  had  converted 


LAYMAN.    No.  VI.  65 

»o  many  cities  on  this  island  without  having  ordained  any  Elders 
amongst  them  ?  What !  When  it  was  his  uniform  and  invariable 
practice  to  ordain  Elders  in  every  country  in  which  he  made  prose- 
lytes ?  What !  Could  he  have  neglected  to  ordain  those  amongst 
them  who  were  absolutely  necessary  to  transact  the  affairs  of  the 
Church  during  his  absence  ?  Would  he  have  left  the  work  he  had 
begun  only  half  performed  ? 

These  considerations  are  sufficient  to  convince  every  unpi'ejudiced 
mind  that  there  were  Elders  or  Presbyters  in  the  Church  of  Crete 
at  the  time  St.  Paul  left  Titus  on  that  island.  And  if  there  were 
Presbyters,  and  those  Presbyters  had  the  power  of  ordination,  why 
was  it  necessary  to  leave  Titus  amongst  them  in  order  to  perform 
a  task  that  might  as  well  have  been  accomplished  without  him  ?  If 
the  Presbyters  possessed  an  authority  equal  to  that  of  Titus,  would 
not  St.  Paul,  by  leaving  him  amongst  them,  have  taken  the  surest 
■way  to  interrupt  the  peace  of  the  Church,  to  engender  jealousy,  and 
Strifes,  and  contentions?  Again.  Let  us  view  this  ti'ansaction  in 
another  point  of  light.  St.  Paul  had  made  convei'ts,  as  I  have  said» 
in  every  city  of  Crete.  Titus  had  attended  him  on  his  last  visit  to 
that  island.  If  Presbyters  were  at  this  time  considered  as  com- 
petent to  the  task  of  ordaining  others,  why  did  he  not  ordain  one 
at  any  rate  during  his  stay  amongst  them,  and  commission  him 
instead  of  detaining  Titus,  to  ordain  Elders  in  every  city  ?  The 
efforts  of  Titus  were  as  much  wanted  as  his  own,  to  carry  the  light 
of  the  gospel  to  other  nations  who  had  not  received  it.  Why  was 
it  necessary  that  Titus  should  ordain  Elders  in  ervery  city  ?  After 
the  ordination  of  a/f  w,  would  not  his  exertions  have  become  useless, 
if  they  were  able  to  complete  the  work  which  he  had  begun  ? 

In  short,  Titus  seems  to  be  entrusted  with  all  the  authority  of  a 
supreme  ruler  of  the  Church.  He  is  directed  to  ordain  Presbyters — 
to  rebuke  witliall  authority — to  admonish  hereticks,  and  in  case  of 
obstinacy,  to  reject  them  from  the  communion  of  the  Church.  These 
circumstances  infallibly  designate  the  presence  of  a  Bishop.  Ac- 
cordingly we  find  that  the  united  voice  of  ancient  writers  declares 
him  to  have  been  the  first  Bishop  of  Crete.  Eusebius  informs  us 
♦'  that  he  received  Episcopal  authority  over  the  Church  of  Crete." 
So  also  says  Theodoret,  St.  Chrysostom,  St.  Jerome,  St.  Ambrose. 
If  these  considerations  united  do  not  show  that  Titus  possessed  in 
Ephesus  powers  superior  to  those  which  were  held  by  the  Presby- 
ters of  those  Churches,  I  know  not  what  considerations  would. 

I  sliall  proceed  with  the  proofs  from  scripture  in  my  next  number, 

CYPRIAN, 


I 


For  the  Albany  Ccntinel. 
THE  LAYMAN.    No.  VI. 


HAVE  been  occupied,  thus  far,  in  noticing  the  arguments  by 
^vhich  the  Miscellaneous  writer  attempts  to  support  the  Presbyte- 
rial  system,  and  the  objections  with  which  he  endeavours  to  assail 
the  Episcopal  Church.    The  facts,  and  the  reasoning  on  which 

K 


CO  LATMAN.  No.  VI. 

Episcopacy  rests,  have  been  only  cursorily  attended  to ;  but  it  is  my 
design,  should  not  circumstances  take  off  my  attention,  to  present 
them  in  the  course  of  these  papers,  as  distinctly,  and  regularly  as 
I  am  able,  to  the  public  consideration. 

The  writer  in  question  has  brought  forv/ard  nothing  that  has  not 
been  a  thousand  times  advanced,  and  as  often  refuted ;  except,  in- 
deed, that  rare  interpretation  oi prophecy,  in  the  Epistle  to  Timo- 
thy, for  which,  I  believe,  the  merit  of  originality  may  very  safely 
be  awarded  to  him.* 

I  flatter  myself  that  I  have  furnished  a  suificient  refutation  of  his 
reasoning,  and  a  satisfactory  answer  to  his  objections.  Nor  can 
the  charge  of  self  complacency,  I  trust,  be  justly  made  against  me 
for  this  observation ;  for,  indeed,  the  task  of  replying  to  ail  that  the 
gentleman  has,  thus  far,  produced,  and,  judging  of  the  future  from 
the  past,  to  all  that  he  is  capable  of  producing,  can  be  a  task  of  no 
very  difficult  execution.  I  think  I  may  venture  to  pledge  myself  to 
expose,  as  he  adv.mces,  all  his  errors,  and  to  detect  all  his  misre- 
presentations. There  is  one  particular,  however,  in  which  I  must 
be  excused  from  following  him.  I  can  never  permit  myself  to  de- 
scend to  personal  attack.  However  desirous  the  gentleman  may  be 
of  displaying  wit,  he  would  do  Avell  to  recollect  that  the  fame  which 
even  real  wit  might  procure  him,  is  too  dearly  purchased  at  the 
expense  of  those  rules  of  delicacy,  which  every  ingenuous  mind  pro- 
poses to  itself  as  an  inviolable  law.t 

There  is  a  passage  of  scripture  relied  upon  in  an  early  part  of 
the  Miscellanies,  upon  which  I  think  it  proper  to  bestow  some  little 
attention.  Not,  indeed,  on  account  of  any  weight  it  can  possibly 
possess  in  the  controversy ;  but  because  it  is  a  passage  that  has 
been  frequently  brought  forward,  and  that  is  capable,  by  plausible 
representation,  of  being  made  to  operate  on  the  minds  of  those  who 
have  not  given  attention  to  the  subject  of  ecclesiastical  authority* 
"  Grant,"  said  the  mother  of  Zebedee's  children,  "  that  these  my 
two  sons  may  sit,  the  one  on  thy  right  hand,  and  the  other  on  thy 
left,  in  thy  kingdom.  And  ivhen  the  ten  heard  it,  tkey  were  moved 
•with  indig?iatio7i  against  the  tivo  brethren.    But  Jesus  called  them. 

*  The  gentleman ,  it  appears,  has  read  a  few  books  lately  ;  andfnds  a  very 
different  interpretation  put  upon  the-vcordsfroin  that  I'ohich  he  had  given.  Still, 
ho-wever,  he  retains  a  parental  affection  for  his  offspring  ;  being  resohed,  at 
all  events,  7iot  to  let  ii  perish.  Let  us,  then,  paraphrase  the  passage  accord- 
ing to  this  7ie\u  idea.  "  Neglect  not  the  gift  of  prophecy  that  is  in  thee,  'which 
ivas given  thee  by  the  act  that  gave  it  to  thee."  The  lucrds,  "  by  prophecy," 
mean,  says  our  author,  the  gift  of  prophecy  bestcmed  ipon  Timothy.  Then  Fauf 
exhorted  him  to  stir  up  the  gift  of  prophecy  that  -was  given  him  by  prophecy  ; 
or,  in  ths  vjnrds  af  our  author,  by  the  act  that  covferred  prophecy;  that  is, 
"  Neglect  not  the  g  ft  of  prophecy  that  is  in  thee,  which  ivas  given  thee  by  the 
act  by  which  it  was  given  thee."  This  is  the  champion  who  threatens  to- 
spread  dismay  through  the  Episcopal  ranks. 

f  "  Another,  residing  either  in  the  city  of  Schenectady,  or  some  where  in  the 
adjacent  country,  was  inade  to  strip  off  his  methodistical  coat,  and  to  do  pen- 
ance, for  several  months,  in  awhile  shirt,  before  he  coidd  come  near  the  altar 
to  minister."  This  is  the  way  in  which  he  speaks  of  a  most  vespecrable 
and  pious  Clergyman  of  our  Church.  I  refer  it  to  the  reader  to  decide 
how  far  such  conduct  c»n  entitle  him  to  the  esteem  of  good  men. 


LAYMAN.    No.  VI.  SIT 

siHto  him,  and  said.  Ye  know  that  the  princes  of  the  Gentiles  exer- 
cise dominion  over  them^  and  thexj  that  are  great  exercise  axitho~ 
rity  iijlion  them.  But  it  shall  not  be  so  among  you:  but  whosoever 
ivill  be  great  amo?ig  you,  let  him  be  your  Miiiister  ;  and  whosoever 
luill  be  chief  among  you,  let  him  be  your  servant :  Even  as  the  Son 
of  man  ca77ienot  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister."  Mat.  xx. 
21,  24,  25,  26,  27,  28.  Desperate,  indeed,  must  be  the  cause  of  pa- 
rity, when  its  advocates  are  driven  to  have  recourse,  for  argument, 
to  such  passages  as  these.  Does  the  gentleman  really  consider  the 
above  texts  of  scripture  as  militating  against  the  principles  of  sub- 
ordination in  the  government  of  the  Church  I 

Let  it  be  remarked,  in  the  first  place,  that  they  have  no  reference 
whatever  to  spiritual  pswer.  It  had  been  the  prevailing  idea  of  the 
Jewish  nation,  that  the  Messiah  would  erect  a  temporal  kingdom  of 
great  splendour.  This  was  the  expectation  of  the  Apostles  them- 
selves, and  our  Saviour  frequently  endeavoured,  without  effect,  to 
correct  their  views  on  the  subject.  All  his  efforts  to  give  them  a 
tyue  idea  of  the  nature  of  his  kingdom  had  been  unavailing.  They 
still  cherished  the  hope  of  being  promoted  to  civil  stations  of  great 
power  and  importance.  "  We  trusted,"  said  two  of  his  disciples, 
upon  seeing  their  Master  put  to  death,  "  that  it  had  been  he  who 
should  have  redeemed  Israel !"  After  his  resurrection,  the  same 
hopes  of  temporal  consequence  revived  in  their  minds,  and  they  ask- 
ed, ^^  Lord,  wilt  thou,  at  this  time,  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel  ?'* 
It  is  perfectly  clear  that  James  and  John,  in  desiring  to  sit,  the  one 
on  the  right  hand,  the  other  on  the  left  of  Jesus,  aspired  after  civil 
importance.  Our  Saviour,  after  addressing  his  Apostles  in  the 
vay  just  mentioned,  immediately  subjoins,  "  And  I  a/ijioitit  imto 
you  a  kingdom,  as  my  Father  hath  afifxointed  unto  me ;  that  ye 
may  eat  and  drijik  at  my  table,  in  my  kingdom,  and  sit  on  thrones 
Jndgijig  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel."  Luke  xxii.  29,  30.  This 
clearly  shows  the  sense  of  the  passages  that  go  before,  and  that  ouv 
Saviour  had  no  design  in  them  to  deprive  the  Apostles  of  spiritual 
authority  over  their  fellow  Christians.  But  what  does  the  writer 
mean  to  prove  by  this  portion  of  scripture  ?  Is  it  his  intention  to 
show  that  the  Apostles  were  upon  a  level  with  respect  to  each  other? 
This  is  a  principle  for  which  the  Episcopal  Church  has  invari- 
ably contended,  although  it  certainly  cannot  be  derived  from  the 
passage  cited  by  the  writer  on  this  occasion.  No ;  the  design 
of  the  gentleman  is  to  prove  that  no  such  thing  as  subordination,  in 
the  ministry,  was  ever  intended  by  Christ.  Let  us,  then,  trace  the 
reasoning,  and  test  it  by  the  conclusion  to  which  it  leads. 

If  these  passages  prove  that  there  was  no  superiority  in  the 
Apostles,  over  the  other  Ministers  of  the  word,  they  equally  prove 
that  there  was  no  such  superiority  in  Jesus  Christ  himself.  Any 
thing  which  may  be  here  commanded  to  the  Apostles  is  illustrated 
and  enforced  by  the  example  of  our  Saviour.  "  Even  as  the  Son  of 
man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister."  Matt.  xx. 
58.  Or  in  the  parallel  language  of  St.  Luke,  "  I  am  among  you 
ashethatserveth."  xxiii.  27.  If,  then,  these  passages  prove  that 
the  Apostles  were  to  have  no  spiritual  control  over  the  other  Clergy, 
they  equally  prove  that  our  Saviour  had  no  spiritual  control  over 
Ujc    Apostici.    This  conclusion  necessarily  follows,  and  it  shows, 


68  LAYMAN.    No.  VI. 

most  deafly,  that  the  passage  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  govern* 
tnent  of  the  Church,  being  designed  merely  as  a  lesson  of  humility 
to  those  to  whom  it  was  addressed.  Again,  this  writer  is  completely 
at  variance  with  himself;  for  in  a  late  number  he  admits  that  the 
Apostles  were  superior  to  other  Ministers  of  the  word,  and  yet  he 
brings  this  passage  to  destroy  all  idea  of  such  superiority.  In  fact, 
trace  this  reasoning  to  its  true  consequences,  and  it  puts  down  all 
kind  of  authority  in  the  Church ;  placing  every  individual  upon  a 
level  with  every  other  individual ;  thus  annihilating  the  priesthood 
altogether.  And  indeed  it  has  been  applied,  by  those  who  first 
brought  it  forward,  to  show  that  our  Saviour  never  designed  to  invest 
one  member  of  his  Church  with  power  over  any  other  member. 

The  Miscellaneous  writer  is  certainly  one  of  the  most  danger- 
ous champions  that  ever  defended  a  cause ;  for  he  constantly  adopts 
a  mode  of  reasoning  that  involves  both  his  friends  and  enemies 
in  promiscuous  ruin.  If  the  weapons  with  which  he  fights  be 
keen  enough  to  wound  his  adversary,  they  may  be  immediately 
turned  to  his  own  destruction.  Those  general  passages  of  scripture 
that  recommend  humility  and  lowliness,  commanding  us  to  prefer 
others  to  ourselves,  with  the  texts  reproving  the  ambition  of  the 
Pharisees,  in  affecting  to  have  the  chief  places  in  the  synagogues, 
and  to  be  called  masters,  and  fathers,  have  been  applied  to  the 
subversion  of  all  authority  in  the  state  :  and  this  by  the  very 
same  sort  of  logic  that  the  Miscellaneous  writer  so  fi-equently 
employs.  It  is  forgotten  that  the  whole  scripture  is  to  be  taken  to- 
gether, and  that  a  consistent  interpretation  is  to  be  put  upon  its 
several  parts,  so  that  nothing  may  be  destroyed.  Thus,  the  licen- 
tious opposer  of  all  suboi-dination  in  civil  society  fastens  his  atten- 
tion upon  pai'ticular  passages,  wherein  the  ambition  of  rulers  is 
condemned,  forgetting  those  places  in  which  obedience  to  the  ma* 
gistrate  is  enjoined.  And  so  this  writer,  in  his  rage  to  destroy  all 
subordination  in  the  Church,  directs  the  view  of  his  readers  to  a 
passage  designed  simply  to  repro\'e  an  inordinate  love  of  temporal 
consequence  in  the  Apostles,  forgetting  those  high  powers  with 
which  Jesus  invested  them,  before  his  ascension,  and  which  were 
constantly  exercised  by  them  and  those  whom  they  appointed,  as 
their  successors,  in  particular  places,  over  all  other  members, 
both  clergy  and  laity,  of  his  Church. 

I  proceed  to  consider  that  passage  of  scripture,  in  which  certain 
prophets  and  teachers  of  Antioch  are  represented  as  laying  their 
hands  on  Paul  and  Barnabas.  This  is  greatly  relied  on  by  the  Mis- 
cellaneous writer,  who  ventures  to  speak  of  it  as  universally  con- 
sidered to  refer  to  ordination.  What  shall  we  think  of  this,  when 
it  is  observed  that  the  most  respectable  commentators  regard  it  as 
not  referring  to  ordination  at  all.  Take,  as  an  example,  the  inter- 
pretation of  Doctor  Doddridge,  an  eminent  dissenter  from  the 
Church  of  England.  "  If  there  be  any  reference  to  a  past  fact  in 
these  ivords,  it  is  probably  to  {,ome  revelation  made  to  Paul  and 
Barnabas,  to  signify  that  they  shoidd  take  a  journey  into  several 
countries  of  Asia  Mi?ior,  to  preach  the  Gospel  there.  But  that 
they  were  now  invested  with  the  Apostolic  office  by  these  inferior 
Ministers,  is  a  thing  neither  credible  in  itsef,  nor  consistent  with 
what   Paul  himself  says,   Galatians  i.   1.     And  that  they  now 


LAYMAN.    No.  VI.  6? 

received  a  fioiver,  before  unknown  in  the  Churchy  of  jne aching  to 
the  idolatrous  Gentiles,  is  inconsistent  with  Acts  xi.  20,  21 ;  and 
ufxon  many  other  consideracio?i3,  to  be  firofiosed  elseiohere,  afifiears 
to  me  absolutely  incredible."  (Doddridge's  Family  Exposition,  iii. 
181.)  Such  is  the  language  of  the  learned  and  pious  Dr.  Doddridge ; 
and  such,  let  me  add,  is  the  languageof  the  most  judicious  com- 
mentators. They  view  the  thing  as  a  solemn  recommendation  of 
Paul  and  Barnabas,  to  the  grace  of  God,  upon  their  entering  on  a 
temfiorary  mission.  This,  then,  is  one  of  the  numerous  examples 
of  the  boldness  with  which  the  Miscellaneous  writer  asserts,  and  of 
the  weakness  with  which  he  argues.  And,  indeed,  if  the  passage 
;n  question  refers  to  an  ordination  of  Paul  and  Barnabas,  to  what 
office,  let  it  be  asked,  were  they  ordained?  Not  to  that  of  pro- 
phets and  teachers ;  for  prophets  and  teachers,  according  to  the 
very  passage  itself,  they  were  already.  Paul,  it  is  well  known, 
had  been  preaching  and  acting  as  a  Minister  of  Christ  long  before 
this  event.  So  also  had  Barnabas.  Was  it  to  the  ajiostoUc  office 
that  they  were  called  by  the  imposition  of  hands  of  these  subordi- 
nate officers  of  the  Church  ?  This,  as  Dr.  Doddridge  says,  is  truly 
incredible,  and  is  altogether  inconsistent  with  what  Paul  says  of 
himself.  He  expressly  calls  himself  "  an  Afiostle,  not  of  man^ 
neither  by  man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ."  Galatians  i.  1.  Here  he 
expi-essly  speaks  of  himself  as  commissioned  to  the  apostolic  office 
by  our  Saviour,  without  the  intervention  of  man.  Well  might  Dr. 
Doddridge  represent  this  as  inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  his  being 
ordained  to  that  high  office  by  the  prophets  or  teachers  of  Antioch. 
Paul  received  his  commission  of  Apostle  from  Jesus  Christ,  with- 
out the  intervention  of  man ;  in  other  words,  without  any  ordination 
from  human  hands. 

In  what  point  of  view  then  is  this  transaction  to  be  considered  ? 
Simply  in  the  light  of  a  solemn  benediction  on  the  ministry  of  Paul 
and  Bai-nabas,  in  preaching  the  gospel  to  a  particular  district;  and, 
in  the  utmost  latitude  of  construction,  can  be  carried  no  further  than 
a  designation  of  these  men  to  a  special  mission.  Imposition  of 
hands  was  not  always  for  ordination.  It  was  frequently  by  wzy  of 
conveying  or  of  imploring  a  blessing.  In  this  manner  was  it  com- 
monly used  by  the  Jews  and  primitive  Christians.  Jaco!)  put  his 
hands  on  the  heads  of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh  when  he  blessed 
them.  And  thus  did  onr  Saviour  act  in  relation  to  the  little  chil- 
dren who  wet-e  brought  to  him. 

In  the  case  under  consideration,  Paul  and  Barnr.bas  were  plainly 
not  invested  with  any  office ;  for  whatever  office  they  held  after  the 
transaction,  they  had  held  before  ;  but  a  benediction  was  bestowed 
on  their  labours,  in  the  circuit  to  which  they  were  directed  to  go  by 
the  Holy  Spirit.  The  transaction  invested  them  with  no  new  au- 
thority. It  made  them  nothing  that  they  were  not  before  ;  which 
circumstance  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  ordination,  that 
being  the  mode  of  delegating  power  not  previously  possessed.  This 
matter,  iiowever,  is  put  out  of  all  doubt  by  referring  to  other  passa- 
ges of  scripture  relating  to  the  same  event.  In  the  very  next  chap- 
ter, Paul  and  Barnaiias  are  represented  as  having/«//f//rrf  the /2cr- 
ticular  mission  to  which  they  had  been  designated,  by  tlic  transac- 
tion at  Antioch,  and  as  returning  to  give  an  account  of  the  same. 


fO  LAYMAN.    No.  VI. 

*'  ^nd  thence  sailed  to  Antioch,  from  whence  they  had  been 
RECOiMMENDED  TO  THE  GRACE  OF  GOD  FOR  THE 
WORK  WHICH  THEY  FULFILLED."  Now,  take  these  two 
parts  of  sci-ipture,  and  compare  them  together,  and  all  doubt  about 
the  nature  of  this  transaction  will  immediately  vanish.  Paul  and 
Barnabas  fulfilled  all  that  the  transaction  at  Antioch  related  to. 
Can  any  thing  more  clearly  show  that  it  was  not  the  afiostoHc  office^ 
but  a  temporary  mission  to  which  they  had  been  set  apart?  The 
latter  they  might  well  represent  themselves  as  having  fulfilled ;  but 
not,  surely,  the  former,  it  being  an  office  that  continued  through  life. 
We  are  here,  also,  let  into  the  true  meaning  of  the  laying  on  of 
hands  in  this  particular  case.  "  And  hence  sailed  to  Antioch^ 
FROM  WHENCE  THEY  HAD  BEEN  RECOMMENDED  TO 
THE  GRACE  OF  GOD,  FOR  THE  WORK  WHICH  THEY 
FULFILLED."  Acts  xiv.  26.  The  imposition  of  hands  then, 
had  been  merely  a  solemn  benediction  by  which  Paul  and  Barnabas 
had  been  I'ecommended  to  the  grace  of  God,  in  the  particular  mis- 
sion to  which  they  Avere  set  apart  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  When  all 
the  circumstances  of  the  transaction,  as  recorded  in  the  thirteenth 
and  fourteenth  chapters  of  the  Acts,  are  fairly  considered,  there 
can  be  no  sort  of  colour  for  representing  Paul  and  Barnabas  as  or- 
dained to  any  office,  much  less  to  the  apostolic  office,  in  this  case. 
No.  Whatever  office  they  had  afterwards  they  had  before.  They 
were  merely  "  recommended  to  the  grace  of  God"  on  being  sent 
*ipon  a  particular  mission  ;  after  fulfilling  which  they  returned  to 
Antioch,  and  gave  an  account  of  such  fulfilment.  They  had  fulfilled 
the  particular  mission,  not  the  apostolic  office.  The  imposition  of 
hands  was  not,  then,  an  ordination  to  office,  but  a  solemn  recom- 
mendation of  them  to  the  grace  of  God,  in  the  mission  which  they 
Ttvere  about  to  undertake.  The  writer  then  is  very  welcome  to  call 
this  a  Preshyterial  ordination;  for,  according  to  Dr.  Doddridge 
himself,  it  was  no  ordination  at  all. 

And  here  let  it  be  remarked,  that  the  advocates  of  parity  ground 
their  mode  of  ordination  on  the  two  cases  of  Timothy,  and  of 
Barnabas  and  Paul.  There  is  not  another  case  which  they  have 
even  a  pretext  for  representing  as  a  Preshyterial  ordination.  Now, 
in  respect  to  the  passages  concerning  Timothy,  and  Barnabas,  and 
Paul,  the  utmost  that  can  possibly  be  contended  for,  is  that  they 
are  disputable  passages.  And  is  it  in  any  point  of  view  correct  or 
safe  to  build  up  a  mode  of  ordination,  unknown  to  the  Church  for 
fifteen  hundred  years,  and  expressly  contradicted  by  the  constant 
exercise  of  the  power  of  commissioning  by  an  order  of  men  supe- 
rior to  the  Elders  of  Ephesus,  upon  two  cases  of  doubtful  con- 
struction ?  Surely  not.  All  the  other  acts  of  ordination,  recorded 
in  scripture,  were  performed  by  the  Apostles  alone,  and  not  a  sin- 
gle example  of  oi'dination  by  Presbyters  can  be  produced  from 
ecclesiastical  history  for  the  first  fifteen  hundred  years  of  the 
Church.  And,  if  John  Calvin  had  happened  to  be  a  Bishop  when 
he  entered  upon  the  business  of  reformation,  Preshyterial  ordina- 
tion would  have  been  as  unknown  to  us  as  it  coni'essedly  was  to  the 
Christians  of  the  primitive  times.  But  I  foi-bear  to  go  into  this  mat- 
ter here  j  intending  to  consider  it  more  distinctly  in  a  future  address, 
,i  Layman  of  the  Episcopal  Church. 


(    71    ) 


For  the  Albany  Centinel, 
CYPRIAN.    No.  III. 


I, 


.F  from  Crete  we  pass  to  Jerusalem,  we  shall  there  discover 
equally  striking  evidence  that  St.  James,  the  brother  of  our  Lord, 
possessed  in  that  place  the  pre-eminence  of  a  Bishop  in  the  Church. 
In  the  first  council  that  was  held  there,  in  order  to  determine  th« 
controversy  which  had  arisen  in  regai'd  to  the  ciixumcision  of 
Gentile  converts,  we  find  him  pronouncing  an  authoritative  sen- 
tence. His  sentence,  we  may  remark  also,  determined  the  contro- 
versy. "  Wherefore  my  sentence  is,  says  he,  that  we  trouble  not 
those  who  from  among  the  Gentiles  are  turned  unto  God."  In 
Acts  xxi.  17  and  18,  Ave  ai'e  told  "  that  when  St.  Paul  and  his  com-- 
pany  were  corns  to  Jei'usalem,  the  brethren  received  him  gladly; 
and  that  the  next  day  following,  Paul  went  in  with  them  unto 
James,  and  all  the  Elders  or  Presbyters  were  present."  Acts  xii* 
17,  it  is  said,  that  "  Peter,  after  he  had  declared  to  the  Christians 
to  whom  he  went,  his  mii'aculous  deliverance,  bade  them  go  and 
show  these  things  to  James  and  to  the  brethren."  In  Galatians  ii. 
12,  St.  Paul  says,  "  that  certain  came  from  James,"  that  is,  from 
the  Church  of  Jerusalem  to  the  Church  of  Antioch.  Surely  these 
passages  strongly  indicate  that  James  held  the  highest  dignity  in 
the  Church  of  Jerusalem.  The  brethren  carry  Paul  and  his  com- 
pany to  him  as  to  a  supreme  officer.  He  has  Presbyters  and  Dea- 
cons in  subordination  to  him.  When  messengers  are  sent  from 
Jerusalem  to  other  Churches,  it  is  not  done  in  the  name  of  the 
Presbyters  ami  Deacons,  or  of  the  Church  of  this  place  ;  it  is  done 
in  the  name  of  James.  Do  not  these  considerations  prove  that 
James  was  the  supreme  ruler  of  this  Church  ? 

If,  however,  any  one  shall  think  these  considerations  not  satis- 
factory in  proof  of  the  point  in  question,  when  we  add  to  them  the 
testimony  of  ancient  writers,  the  subject,  I  trust,  will  no  longer  ad- 
mit of  a  i-easonable  doubt.  According  to  Eusebius,  Hegesippus, 
who  lived  near  the  times  of  the  Apostles,  tells  us  that  James,  the 
brother  of  our  Lord,  received  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  from  the 
Apostles.  Clement  also,  as  he  is  quoted  by  the  same  author,  tells 
ns,  "  that  Peter,  James,  and  John,  after  the  ascension  of  Christ, 
chose  James  the  just  to  be  Bishop  of  Jerusalem."  And  in  the  Apos- 
tolical constitutions,  the  Apostles  are  inti-oduced  as  speaking  thus: 
*'  Concerning  those  that  were  ordained  by  us  Bishops  in  our  life  time, 
we  signified  to  you  that  they  were  these,  James  the  brother  of  our 
Lord  was  ordained  by  us.  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  &c."  St.  Jerome 
also  says"  that  St.  James,  immediately  after  the  passion  of  our  Lord, 
was  ordained  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Apostles."  And  Cyril, 
who  was  afterwards  Bishop  of  the  same  Church,  and  whose  testi- 
mony, therefore,  has  peculiar  weight,  calls  St.  James  the  first  Bishop 
of  that  diocese.  To  all  this  evidence  we  may  add  the  testimonies 
of  St.  Austin,  of  St.  Ciirysostom,  of  Epiphanius,  of  St.  Ambrose. 
And  even  Ignatius  himself,  who  lived  in  the  Apostolic  age,  makes 
St.  Stephen  the  Deacon  of  St.  James.  I  trust  it  will  no  longer 
te  doubted  that  James  was  the  first  Bishop  cf  Jerusalem. 


72  CYPRIAN.    No.  III. 

Tlie  Apostolic  authority  was  also  manifestly  communicated  to 
Epaphroditus.  St.  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  ii.  25, 
calls  him  the  Apostle  to  the  Philippians.  "  But  I  supposed  it  neces. 
sary  to  send  to  you,  Epaphroditus,  my  brother  and  companion  in 
labor  and  fellow-soldier,  but  your  Apostle."  Accordingly  St.  Jerome 
observes,  "  by  degrees,  in  process  of  time,  others  were  ordained 
Apostles  by  those  whom  our  Lord  had  chosen"— -as  that  passage  to 
the  Philippians  shows  ;  "  I  supposed  it  necessary  to  send  unto  you 
Epaphroditus,  your  Apostle."  And  Theodoret,  upon  this  place,  gives 
this  reason  why  Epaphroditus  is  called  the  Apostle  to  the  Philip- 
pians. "  He  was  intrusted  Avith  the  Episcopal  government,  as  being 
their  Bishop."  But  these  are  parts  of  scripture  on  which  the  ad» 
vocates  of  Episcopacy  place  the  least  reliance. 

In  the  three  first  chapters  of  the  Revelations  of  St.  John,  we  find 
absolute  demonstration  of  the  existence  of  the  Episcopal  dignity  and 
authority,  at  the  time  in  which  this  work  was  written.  In  these 
chapters,  St.  John  gives  us  a  description  of  the  seven  Bishops,  who 
superintended  the  interests  of  the  Church  in  the  seven  principal 
cities  in  the  Pro-Consular  Asia.  Our  Lord  is  represented  as  send-, 
ing  seven  Epistles  to  the  seven  Churches  of  these  cities,  directed  to 
the  seven  Angels  of  the  Churches,  whom  he  calls  the  "  seven  stars  in 
his  right  hand."  From  all  the  circumstances  that  are  mentioned, 
it  undeniably  appears  that  these  seven  Angels  were  so  many  single 
persons,  invested  with  supreme  authority  in  the  Churches ;  that  is 
to  say,  they  were  the  Bishops  of  those  Churches. 

I  say  it  manifestly  appears,  that  these  seven  Angels  of  the 
Churches,  whom  the  Lord  calls  the  "  seven  stars"  in  his  right 
hand,  were  single  persons.  They  were  not  the  whole  Church  or 
collective  body  of  Christians.  This  is  proved  incontestably  from 
these  considerations.  The  whole  Churches,  or  collective  body  of 
Christians,  are  represented  by  "  seven  candlesticks,"  which  are 
distinguished  from  the  "  seven  stars,"  that  ai-e  emblems  of  the 
Angels,  the  Bishops.  They  are  constantly  mentioned  in  the  singu- 
lar number.  "  The  Angel  of  the  Church  of  Ephesus."  The  Angel 
of  the  Church  of  Smyrna,"  and  so  of  the  rest.  And  in  the  Epistle 
to  Thyatira  it  is  said,  "  I  know  thy  works."  "  I  have  a  few  things 
against  thee."  "  Remember  how  thou  hast  heard."  "  Thou  hast 
kept  the  word  of  my  patience."  This  is  the  style  which  is  used 
when  the  Angel  or  Bishop  of  the  Church  is  addressed.  But  when 
what  is  said  relates  to  the  people,  the  style  is  altered,  the  plural 
number  is  then  used.  "  The  devil  shall  cast  some  of  you  into  pri- 
son." "  I  will  reward  every  one  of  you  according  to  your  works. 
That  which  ye  have,  hold  fast  till  I  come."  And  this  variation 
in  the  number,  proves  that  some  parts  of  these  Epistles  relate  to 
the  whole  Church,  and  others  only  to  the  Angels.  But  what  places 
this  subject  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  is  this  cii-cumstance :  The 
titles  of  Angels  and  stars  are  constantly  applied  in  the  book  of  Re- 
velation to  single  men,  and  never  to  a  society  or  number  of  men. 
Our  Lord  is  called  the  "  morning  star  and  the  sun,"  and  the  twelve 
Apostles  are  called  "  twelve  stars,"  and  "  twelve  Angels." 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  seven  stars  or  Angels  in  the  book 
of  Revelation  are  single  persons.  That  these  persons  possessed 
iuprenie  iLUthority  in  the  Churches,  is  also  demonstrated  frojn  these 


CYPRIAN.    No.  Ill;  n 

Considerations.  These  Epistles  are  addressed  to  them  alone.  The 
Churches  are  called  candlesticks,  and  they  the  stars  that  give  lig'he 
to  the  candlesticks.  The  seven  Angels  are  praised  for  all  the 
good  which  they  had  done,  and  blamed  for  all  the  evil  Avhich  hap- 
pened in  the  Churches.  The  Angel  of  Ephesus  is  commended  be- 
cause "  he  could  not  bear  them  that  were  evil,  and  had  tried  those 
■who  called  themselves  Apostles,  and  were  not  so,"  which  seems  to 
imply  that  he  had  convicted  them  of  imposture.  The  Angel  of  Per- 
gamos  is  reproved  for  having  them  "  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  Ba- 
laam, and  he  is  severely  threatened  unless  he  repented."  This 
shows  tiiat  he  possessed  authority  to  correct  these  disorders,  or  he 
could  not  justly  be  menaced  with  punishment  for  permitting  them. 
The  Angel  of  Thyatira  also  is  blamed  for  suffering  "  Jezebel,"  who 
called  herself  a  prophetess,  to  teach  and  seduce  the  people.  And  the 
Angel  of  Sardis  is  commanded  "  to  be  watchful,  and  to  strengthen 
those  who  are  ready  to  die,"  otherwise  our  Lord  threatens  to  come 
on  him  "  as  a  thief;  at  an  hour  which  he  should  not  know."  These 
circumstances  demonstrate,  that  under  the  appellation  of  Angels^ 
and  also  under  the  emblems  oi  stars,  are  represented,  in  the  Revela- 
tions of  St.  John,  the  Bishops  of  the  Churches,  as  the  ancient  Fathers 
also  imagined. 

It  appears  then,  that  at  the  time  St.  John  wrote  this  book,  which 
closes  the  canon  of  scripture,  there  wei'e  sevew  supreme  rulers  of 
the  Churches,  or,  in  other  words.  Bishops  in  the  Pro-Consular  Asia. 
If,  however,  we  are  able  to  prove  from  the  most  early  accounts  of 
the  primitive  Church,  that  there  were  Bishops  settled  in  these 
Churches  at  or  near  the  time  when  this  Epi'^tle  was  sent  to  them, 
the  subject  will  no  longer  bear  a  controversy.  Let  us  see  how  this 
point  stands.  The  book  of  Revelations  was  written,  according  to 
the  testimony  of  ancient  writers,  towards  the  end  of  the  reign  of  the 
Emperor  Domitian.  We  are  told,  that  in  a  short  time  after  the 
death  of  Domitian,  St.  John,  being  recalled  from  banishment  by 
Serva,  went  to  Ephesus,  and  took  upon  him  the  care  of  the  Church 
in  that  city,  in  the  presence  of  seven  Bishops.  Is  it  not  more  than 
probable  that  these  are  the  seven  Bishops  alluded  to  in  the  three 
first  chapters  of  the  Apocalypse.  The  numbers  are  the  same,  and 
all  the  Churches  were  included  in  the  Pro-Consular  Asia,  of  which. 
Ephesus  was  the  metropolis.  But  if  this  cannot  be  absolutely  de- 
monstrated, yet  without  the  aid  of  this  circumstance,  we  can  prove 
as  much  as  Ave  wish  on  the  present  subject.  We  know  that  about 
this  very  time  Ignatius  tells  us  that  Onesimus  was  Bishop  of  Ephe- 
sus. We  know  from  the  scriptures  themselves,  that  some  time  be- 
fore this,  Timothy  had  been  made  Bishop  of  Ephesus  by  St.  Paul. 
We  know  that  there  was  an  uninterrupted  succession  of  twenty- 
seven  Bishops,  from  his  time  to  the  period  in  which  the  great  coun- 
cil of  Chalcedon  was  held  in  the  fourth  century.  There  was  then, 
undoubtedly,  a  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  the  metropolis  of  the  Pro-Con- 
sular Asia,  at  the  time  in  which  the  Apocalypse  was  written.  We 
know  also,  that  not  long  after  the  time  of  St.  John,  Sagaris  was 
Bishop  of  Laodicea.  The  Philadelphians  had  a  Bishop  amongst 
thenri  when  Ignatius  wrote  his  Epistle  to  them.  He  exhorts  them  to 
be  dutiful  to  him.  Polycarp,  we  are  sure,  was  also  about  this  time 
Bishop  of  Sm}Tna.  Do  >ve  not  derive  from  these  facts  that  are  well 

L 


5-4  CYPRIAN.    No.  III. 

attested,  sufficient  evidence  to  convince  us  that  there  were  seven 
men  entrusted  with  the  dignity  and  power  of  Bishops  of  the  Chuixh 
in  this  part  of  Asia,  at  the  time  that  St,  John  sent  these  Epistles  to 
them  ?  Have  we  not  sufficient  proof  that  the  seven  Angels,  emblem- 
atically represented  by  the  seven  stars  in  the  candlesticks  the 
Churches,  were  seven  Bishops  ?  But  let  us  bring  tills  part  of  the 
subject  to  a  conclusion. 

The  case  of  Timothy  alone,  had  we  no  other  evidence  from 
scripture,  would,  when  taken  in  connection  Avith  the  testimony  of 
ancient  writers,  be  perfectly  satisfactory  to  me.  This  alone  de- 
monstrates all  that  we  can  desire.  He  was  placed  by  St.  Paul  to 
superintend  the  Church  of  Ephesus.  This  case  is  even  stronger 
than  was  that  of  Titus  in  Crete.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  there 
had  long  been  Presbyters  in  the  Cliurch  of  Ephesus.  Listen  then, 
to  the  language  which  St.  Paul  speaks  in  his  Epistles  to  him,  and 
see  if  it  is  possible  that  he  possessed  no  superiority  over  the  Pres- 
byters of  that  ChuTch.  "  I  besought  thee,"  says  he  to  Timothy,  "  to 
abide  still  at  Ephesus  when  I  went  into  Macedonia,  that  thou  miglit- 
est  charge  some  that  they  teach  no  other  doctrine."  Would  Timo- 
thy have  been  commissioned  to  charge  the  Presbyters  to  teach  no 
other  doctrine  had  he  possessed  no  superiority  over  them  ?  Would 
they  not  have  had  a  right  to  resist  any  attempts  at  a  control 
of  this  kind  as  an  encroachment  on  their  privileges'  Again, 
Timothy  is  directed  to  try  and  examine  the  Deacons,  whether  they 
be  blameless  or  not.  If  they  prove  tliemselves  worthy,  he  is  to 
admit  them  into  the  office  of  a  Deacon  ;  and  upon  a  faithful  dis- 
charge of  that  office,  they  are  to  be  elevated  to  a  higher  station. 
''Likewise,"  says  he,  "must  the  Deacons  be  grave,  not  double 
tongued,  not  given  to  much  wine,  not  greedy  of  filthy  lucre,  holding 
the  mystery  of  faith  in  a  pure  conscience."  "  Let  these  also  be  first 
proved,  and  then  let  them  use  the  office  of  a  Deacon,  being  found 
blameless."  Here  we  find  no  mention  made  of  the  Presbyters  of 
Epheaus,  in  the  ordination  of  Deacons.  Tliey  are  not  associated 
■with  him  at  all  in  the  work*  Does  not  this  indicate,  does  it  not 
demonstrate  a  superiority  of  power  on  the  part  of  Timothy? 
Timothy  is  also  exhorted  to  lay  "  hands  suddenly  on  no  man.'* 
'ITiere  is  no  such  thing  as  a  recognition  even  of  the  co-operation  of 
Presbyters  widi  him.  He  seems  to  be  the  sufireme  and  the  onltf 
agent  in  the  transaction  of  these  affairs. 

Now,  I  appeal  to  the  common  sense  of  mankind,  had  the  Pres- 
byters of  Ephesus  possessed  an  authority  equal  to  that  of  Timothy  ; 
had  they,  like  him,  possessed  the  powei-  of  ordination,  would  not 
St,  Paul  have  recognized  tlieir  agency  in  connection  with  his  ? 
Would  it  not  have  been  to  treat  them  with  improper  neglect  not  to 
mention  them  ?  But  what  consummates  our  evidence  on  this  point, 
and  places  the  subject  beyond  all  doubt,  is  the  charge  which  St, 
Paul  gives  to  Timothy  in  relation  to  the  penal  discipline  he  was  to 
exercise  over  his  Presbyters.  Timothy  is  required  to  "  receive  an 
accusation  against  an  Elder  or  Presbyter,  only  before  two  or  three 
witnesses."  "  Them  (that  is,  those  amongst  the  Presbyters)  that 
sin,  rebuke  before  all,  that  others  also  may  fear."  Can  any  one 
imagine  that  Timothy  would  have  been  commissioned  to  liste7i  to 
accusatfOTH  made  against  Pretdytcrs^  openly  to  rebuke  ihevi,  had 


CLEMENSb    No.  I.  n 

not  his  authority  transcended  theirs  ?  Does  not  this  single  circum- 
stance vinquestionably  cstabHsh  the  point  of  his  superiority  ?  "  The 
man,"  says  a  learned  and  ingenious  writer  of  our  country,  "  who 
shall  not  find  a  Bishop  in  Ephesus,  will  be  puzzled  to  find  one  in 
England."* 

I  cannot  conceive  of  a  case  that  could  be  more  clear  and  unequi- 
vocal, that  could  speak  more  loudly  to  the  common  sense  of  man- 
kind, than  the  case  of  Timothy  in  Ephesus.  He  is  obviously  in- 
trusted with  apostolic  authority.  Every  thing  wiiich  the  Apostle 
could  do  in  his  own  person,  he  commissions  Timothy  to  pei  form 
during  his  absence.  He  is  to  adjust  the  affairs  of  the  Chxircli ;  he 
is  to  prove  and  examine  Deacons  ;  he  alone  is  to  ordam  them  ;  he 
alone  is  recognized  in  the  performance:  of  the  task  of  ordaln'mg 
Jilders  or  Presbyters  ;  lie  possesses  perfect  control  over  these  Pres- 
byters. If  tliey  are  guilty  of  any  offences  or  misdemeanors,  he  is  to 
iii/lict  fiunishme7it  u^on  them,  I  cannot  conceive  of  a  case  more 
satisfactory  in  proof  of  the  apostolic  original  of  the  Episcopal  form 
of  Church  Goverament.  Had  Timothy  been  of  the  same  order 
with  the  Presbyters  of  Ephesus,  can  it  be  imagined  that  the  Apostle 
would,  by  elevating  him  to  such  high  privileges  amongst  them,  have 
endangered  the  peace  of  the  Church,  have  taken  a  step  so  well  cal- 
culated to  excite  discontent  and  dissatisfaction  amougst  the  remain- 
ing Presbyters  or  Elders?  This  cannot  be  imagined.  Timothy 
was  then  undeniably  intrusted  with  Episcopal  authority  in  the 
Chureh  of  Ephesus ;  he  was  the  Bishop  of  that  place.  This  is 
proved  by  the  concurring  voice  of  ancient  writei's.  Eusebius  tells 
us  "  that  he  was  the  first  Bishop  of  the  province  or  diocese  of 
Ephesus."  The  anonymous  autlior  of  his  life  in  Phocius  says, 
*'  that  he  was  the  first  that  acted  as  Bishop  in  Ephesus,  and  that  he 
was  ordained  Bishop  of  the  metropolis  of  Ephesus  by  the  great  St. 
Paul."  In  tlve  council  of  Chalcedon  twenty  seven  Bishops  are  said 
to  have  succeeded  in  that  chair  from  Timothy.  To  prove  the  same 
point  goes  the  testimony  of  St.  Chrysostom  and  Theodoret ;  and  in 
the  apostolical  constitutions  we  are  expressly  told,  that  he  was 
ordained  Bishop  of  Ephesus  by  St.  Paul. 

I  shall  conclude  the  detail  of  our  scripture  evidence  hi  my  next 
number. 

ClcTRIAN. 


/or  the  Mbany  Centinel, 
CLEMENS.   No.  I. 

X  HE  author  of  "  Miscellanies"  has  published  nothing  lately  on 
the  subject  of  Ciiurch  Government.  He  thus  allows  the  reader 
time  to  consider  what  has  been  already  written,  and  his  opponent, 
*'  A  Layman  of  the  Episcopal  Church  "  room  in  the  newspaper  to 
muster  all  his  forces.  This  latter  writer,  though  he  started  early, 
and  has  been  very  industrious,  yet  he  still  lags  behind,  and  his 
iaiowledge  appears  by  no  means  to  equal  his  zeal.    It  v/ill  be  useful 

•  Df .  Bowden,  ia  his  answer  to  Dr.  Stilrs. 


fS  CLEMENS.    No.  I. 

to  the  public  as  well  as  to  himself  to  point  out  a  few  mistakes  in  hi» 
last  piece. 

He  says  that  Episcopalians  "  rely  upon  the  powers  which  Timo- 
thy exercised,  not  upon  the  manner  of  his  ordination."  I  have 
been  so  weak  as  to  believe  that  the  manner  is  the  only  subject  of 
dispute.  If  the  reader  will  turn  to  p.  25  of  "  A  Companion  for  the 
Festivals,"  &c.  he  will  see  that  the  text  in  the  second  Epistle  to  Ti- 
mothy is  brought  to  prove  that  his  ordination  was  Episcopal,  and  that 
"  much  stress"  is  laid  upon  it.*  This  writer  ought  to  have  recol- 
lected too,  that  he  relied  upon  it  in  his  first  pieces,  and  unjustly 
blamed  the  author  of  "  Miscellanies"  for  using  by  instead  of  with. 

Again  he  asserts,  "  that  there  is  not  a  single  example  to  be  pro- 
duced from  scripture  or  from  the  whole  history  of  the  Church, 
before  the  days  of  Calvin,  of  an  ordination  by  any  but  an  order  of 
ministers  superior  to  the  elders  who  officiated  in  the  clerical  char- 
acter," 8cc.  I  know  how  he  interpi'ets  scripture,  but  I  cannot  tell 
what  Church  history  he  has  read.  Let  him  take  one  example,  until 
others  are  found  for  him :  In  the  celebrated  Church  of  Alexandria, 
Presbyters  ordained  even  their  own  Bishops  for  more  than  200 
years,  in  the  earliest  ages  of  Christianity.  Whatever  rank  and 
power  these  Bishops  had  (which  is  not  now  the  question),  this  was 
the  manner  of  their  ordination.f  He  mentions  farther  some  cases 
in  which  the  Apostles  "  alone  performed  the  act  of  oi-dination."  I 
merely  ask  him,  what  was  the  number  of  the  Apostles  ?  How  could 
the  very  first  ordinations  have  been  otherwise  ?  Who  ordained  Paul 
and  Barnabas  at  Antioch  ? 

He  alleges  "  that  the  cause  of  parity  has  nothing  but  words  to  rest 
on" — that  the  Episcopalians  "never  pretend  to  derive  arguments  from 
such  a  source" — and  that  "  they  would  give  up  their  cause  at  once, 
if  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  placing  it  on  such  a  basis."  This  is, 
indeed,  strange.  I  thought  that  they  did  rest  on  the  words,  "  by 
the  putting  on  of  my  hands,"  to  prove  that  Paul  oi'dained  Timothy, 
I  thought  that  this  writer  was  not  willing  to  give  up  the  little  word 
meta,  and  that  he  was  now  striving  to  force  it  into  his  service.  I 
should  suppose  that  the  words  of  scripture  were  the  best  source 
from  which  to  derive  arguments.^  Verily,  if  he  will  not  admit  the 
obvious  construction  and  force  of  these  woi-ds,  "  with  the  laying  on 
of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,"  he  is  right  in  giving  u}i  the  cause 
at  once,  and  not  challenging  persons  to  dispute  with  him. 

After  all,  this  writer  seems  loath  to  part  with  nieta.  He  still 
asserts  that  "  the  two  words  dia  and  7neta  are  opposed  in  the  Epis- 
tles to  Timothy" — "  that  dia  signifies,  pai'ticulai'Iy,  the  cause  of  a 
thing,  and  that  meta  is  the  preposition  of  concurrence."    Now  I 

*  This  text  is  there  brought  forward  to  explain  and  ascertain  the  meaning- 
<)f  the  text  relied  on  by  the  advocates  of  Presbytery  in  the  first  Epistle  to 
Timothy.  £d. 

t  See  this  assertion  disproved  by  Detector,  No.  1.  Jid. 

:j:  How  disingenuous  and  quibbling  is  this  writer,  who,  the  reader  will 
recollect,  is  the  author  of  Miscellanies  under  a  dillerent  signature.  By  the 
nvorJs  on  which,  the  Layman  asserts,  the  cause  of  parity  rests,  he  evidently 
jneans,  the  vcords  which  are  used  as  tides  or  names  of  office,  and  which 
change  in  their  signification,  and  vary  in  their  api)lication.  Ed, 


CLEMENS.    No.  I.  If 

lavcr  that  they  are  not  o^ijiosed,  that  meta,  with  the  genitive  case, 
has  frequently  the  same  meaning  and  force  as  f/m,  and  that  it  must 
be  construed  6y,  or,  bij  means  of.  A  few  examples  follow :  Thucyd. 
Hist.  Stephanus  edit.  ];rinted  1588.  book  ii.  p.  197,  folio  ed.  Kai 
meta  kainoteetos  men  logon  apatasthai  aristoi  meta  dedohiniasmenoi 
de  mee  ziinepcslhai  ethelein.  Translation.  Ye  are  easihj  deceived 
by  novelty  qfsfieech,  but  hard  to  be  prevailed  upon  to  execute  ivhaC 
i»  laudable.  In  this  sentence,  the  word  meta  is  twice  used  for  dia^ 
as  will  Ijc  seen  by  attending  to  its  grammatical  construction.  Thu^ 
cyd.  same  edit,  book  v.  fol.  354.  Dia  teen  ek  tees  Attikees  potc 
meta  dooroon  dokousan  anachorcesin.  In  this  sentence,  like  that 
in  Timothy,  both  the  prepositions  are  used ;  though  in  Thucyd.  dici, 
is  taken  for /;ro///er,  and  governs  the  accusative.  The  translation 
is  this  :  On  account  of  his  return  from  Attica,  siipfiosed  to  have 
been  occasioned  by  presents.  Thucyd.  book  vii.  folio  526.  Meta 
■misthou  etthein;  To  come  for  the  sake  of  pay.  Mounteney's  De- 
most.  1st.  Olynth.  p.  46,  Eton.  1764.  Met'  aleetheias ;  Through 
the  medium  of  truth.  The  same,  p.  109.  Meta  polloon  kai  kaloon 
kindunoon  kteesamenoi^  &c.  Having  required  it  by  maJiy  and  glori- 
t)us  (or  noble,  or  honourable)  dangers  or  hazards.  Plutarch,  Leips, 
1774,  p.  16.  Meta  autou  de  ueetteeton  ousan;  But  in  his  hands ^ 
or  ivhen  employed  by  him  being  inviyicible.  With  these  authorities 
1  leave  the  reader  at  present,  to  judge  whether  "  the  word  7neta  is  as 
appropriate  an  one  as  dia  to  express  the  cause  of  a  thing."  What- 
ever "  reputation"  the  "  Layman"  may  have  "  as  a  scholar,"  and 
whatever  "  lexicons"  he  may  consult,  I  protest  that  I  had  rather 
depend  upon  Thucydides,  Demosthenes,  and  Plutarch,  in  this  case, 
than  upon  him. 

Omitting  several  things  until  another  occasion,  I  remark  now 
only  the  singular  way  in  which"  this  writer  proves  that  Paul  or- 
dained Timothy.  He  quotes  these  words  to  Titus,  "  For  this  cause 
left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouklest  set  in  order  the  things  that 
are  v/anting,  and  ordain  Elders  in  every  city,  as  I  had  appointed 
thee."  "  Here,  let  it  be  observed,"  says  he,  "  in  passing  along, 
that  Titus  is  spoken  of  as  having  been  ordained  by  the  Apostle.  A3 
I  had  appointed  thee.  Nothing  is  said  of  the  Presbytery  in  this  case. 
Paul  appointed  Titus  to  his  office,  and  this  is  a  conclusive  circum- 
stance for  believing  that  the  case  was  the  same  in  relation  to  Timo- 
thy, as  it  is  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  they  were  commissioned 
in  different  ways."  The  reader  will  please  to  look  at  this  passage, 
and  say  what  he  thinks  of  the  ingenuousness  of  him  who  wi-ote  it. 
For  my  own  part,  I  wish  the  writer,  in  passing  along,  had  passed 
over  this.  "  Paul  appointed  Titus  to  his  office."  How  does  this 
appear  ?  "  I  had  appointed  thee."  Does  this  mean  that  Paul  had 
ordained  Titus  ?  Most  assuredly  not.  The  meaning  evidently  is, 
as  I  had  directed  thee,  or  had  give7i  thee  in  charge.  It  is  a  difl'erent 
word  from  that  which  is  used  in  the  same  verse  for  ordain,  and  is 
projjcrly  rendered  in  our  translation  appoint.  This  will  be  seen 
by  any  one  v.ho  examines  the  Greek  Testament  for  the  use  of  the 
word  in  other  places.  See  Mat.  xi.  1,  and  Luke  viii.  55,  where  it 
is  rendered  conunanding  and  connnarided.  But  if  Paul  did  ordain 
Titus,  how  is  it  ''  a  conclusive  circumstance"  that  he  ordained 
Timotliy  ]  Dees  it  liccessarily  foUoWj  that,  because  a  man  has  or-« 


n  CLEMENS.    No.  II. 

dained  one,  he  must  have  ordained  another  ?  "  Nothing  is  said  of 
the  Presbytery  in  this  case:"  for  this  good  reason,  that  the  Apostle 
is  not  speaking  of  the  ordination  of  Titus.  When  ordination  is  the 
subject,  he  expressly  mentions  "  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
Presbytery."  If  there  be  no  other  pi'oof  than  this,  then  may  it 
safely  be  denied  that  Paul  ordained  either  the  one  or  the  other.  As 
to  Timothy,  I  have  some  doubt  whether  he  was  so  much  as  present 
at  his  ordination. 

CLEMENS. 


W, 


jFor  the  jilbany  CentineL 
CLEMENS.    No.  IL 


HEN  I  wrote  last,  I  did  not  point  out  half  the  inaccuracies 
■which  occur  in  a  late  piece  of  "  A  Layman  of  the  Episcopal 
Church."  I  can  mention  now  only  a  few  more  of  the  grosser 
ones. 

In  one  place  he  says,  that  certain  circumstances  ''  prove  as  far 
as  moral  evidence  can  prove  any  thing,  that  the  Presbytery,  or 
Church  officers  mentioned  in  the  Epistle  to  Timothy,  were  of  the 
order  of  the  Apostles."  In  another  place  he  says,  that  *'  the  cir- 
cumstance of  the  Apostle  using  a  word,  in  relation  to  himself,  which 
denotes  the  instrumental  cause,  and,  with  respect  to  the  Presbytery, 
a  word,  which,  particularly  as  distinguished  from  rfzc,  expresses 
agreement,  shows  clearly,  that  the  authoritative  power  was  vested 
in  him,  and  that  the  act,  in  the  part  of  the  Presbytery,  was  an  act 
of  mere  concurrence."  Here  is  an  apparent  contradiction.  First 
the  Presbytery  consisted  of  Afiostles^  and  afterwards  they  arc 
changed  into  Presbyters,  If  they  were  Aposiles,  where  was  the 
necessity  of  more  than  one  laying  on  of  hands  ?  Had  they  not  all 
equal  authority  to  ordain  ?  If  they  were  Apostles,  and  the  Bishops 
of  the  Episcopal  Church  are  their  successors,  will  it  not  follow  that 
a  number  of  Bishops  must  be  present  to  ordain  one  of  their  Priests, 
as  well  as  one  of  their  Bishops,  unless  the  text  be  disregarded  alto» 
gether.  I  take  it  to  be  a  good  rule  for  a  writer  carefully  to  review 
his  piece  before  he  publishes,  and  to  see  whether  all  the  pai*ts  are 
consistent  with  one  another. 

The  "  Layman"  is  of  opinion  that  the  practice  "  of  Presbyters 
imposing  hands  in  connection  with  the  Bishop  can  do  no  harm." 
Now,  I  am  of  opinion  that  it  does  a  great  deal  of  good,  and  that 
the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytei'y  is  the  appointed  mean 
of  setting  a  man  apart  to  the  office  of  the  ministry.  What  did  the 
Apostles  convey  ?  Surely  not  the  Apostolic  office.  They  ordained 
men  to  be  Church  officers.  Are  not  Presbyters  Church  officers, 
and  cannot  they  convey  the  office  which  they  themselves  possess?* 
This  writer  is  anxious  to  have  it  remcmliered  that  Paul  has  been 
said  to  have  acted  at  the  ordination  of  Timothy  (if  present)  as  a 
jnere  Presbyter.  In  what  other  way 'could  he  have  acted?  He 
•was  not  ordaining  an  Apostle,  but  a  Presbyter  j  or,  if  this  writer 

*  Not  unless  the-  had  received  power  to  convey  itr  hd. 


CLEMENS.    No.  U.  79 

will  have  it  so,  "  a  Church  officer,  a  grave  man,  or  man  ofautho' 
rity."  At  the  same  time  Paul,  as  an  Apostle,  Avas  superior  not 
only  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  but  I  verily  believe  to  all  the  Patriarchs, 
Metropolitans,  Archbishops,  Bishops,  &c.  who  ever  existed  either 
in  the  Romish  or  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  "  Let  this  be 
remembered." 

As  to  the  reflection  on  the  author  of  "  Miscellanies"  for  the 
neglect  of  the  "  use  of  means"  in  explaining  scripture,  let  it  only 
be  said,  that  prayer  and  the  reading  of  the  New  Testament  are 
among  the  best  means.  O.  that  both  Clergymen  and  Laymen 
devoted  more  time  to  these.  Besides,  the  reader  will  see  that  conv. 
mentators  are  not  undervalued  nor  neglected. 

The  "  Layman"  speaks  of  "  the  uniform  and  uninterrupted  tes- 
timony of  the  Church  uniA'ersal  for  fifteen  hundred  years,"  of  "  the 
decided  and  unequivocal  evidence  of  primitive  history,"  and  of  "  the 
validity  of  Presbyterial  ordination  having  been  denied  from  its 
origin."  These  assertions,  without  any  qualification,  are  extremely 
unwarrantable.  He  will  permit  me  to  recommend  to  him  to  read 
Mosheim's  Ecclesiastical  History,  and  Neal's  History  of  the  Puri- 
tans ;  or  if  he  prefer  a  Bishop  of  his  own  Church,  he  may  read 
Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation.*  Is  it  possible  that  there 
should  be  a  necessity  in  the  nineteenth  century  to  give  an  account 
of  the  early  rise  and  gradual  progress  of  popery,  to  produce  the 
sentiments  and  conduct  of  the  best  and  most  learned  Bishops  of  the 
Cliurch  of  England  as  to  Presbyterian  ordination,  together  with 
the  statutes  of  the  realm  ?t    ^^  generous  man  would  wish  neither  to 

•  I3  it  not  astonishing  that  this  nuthor  will  refer  to  Bishop  Burnet,  who, 
in  his  History  of  the  Reformation,  vol.  i.  p.  366,  expressly  says,  that  to 
maintain  that  Bishops  and  Priests  are  not  distinct  orders,  is  to  follow  the 
schoolmen  and  canonists  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  the  very  dregs  of  popery? 
And  in  his  exposition  of  tlie  articles  he  says,  that  "  Christ  appointed  2i  suc- 
cession of  Pastors,  in  different  ranks ;  and  as  the  Apostles  settled  the 
Churches,  they  appointed  different  orders  of  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Dea- 
sons."     Burnet's  Exp.  Art.  2.5.  Ed. 

f  It  is  a  fact,  capable  of  being  satisfactorily  proved,  that  "  the  best  and 
most  learned  Bishops  of  the  Church  of  England,"  whatever  allowance  they 
might  be  disposed  to  make  for  supposed  cases  of  necessity,  never  admitted 
as  a  general  truth  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination.  On  the  contrary, 
they  maintained  with  the  Church  in  tlie  preface  to  the  ordination  services, 
that  no  man  was  to  be  esteemed  a  lavjful  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon,  isiho 
had  not  Episcopal  consecration  or  ordination.  Even  Bishop  Burnet,  to 
whom  the  author  of  Miscellanies  refers,  expressly  says,  that  Archbishop 
Cranmer  changed  the  "  singidar  opinions"  winch,  at  the  commencement  of 
the  reformation,  while  his  sentiments  on  many  fundamental  doctrines  were 
unsettled  and  erroneous,  he  was  disposed  to  entertain  concerning  the 
equality  of  power  in  Bishops  and  Presbyters.  These  are  the  words  of 
Bishop  Burnet :  "  In  Cranmer's  paper  some  singular  notions  of  his  about 
the  nature  of  ecclesiastical  offices  will  be  found;  but  as  they  are  delivered 
by  him  with  all  possible  modesty,  so  they  are  not  established  as  the  doctrine 
cf  the  Church,  but  laid  aside  as  particular  conceits  of  his  awn  ,•  and  it  seems 
that  afterwards  he  changed  his  opinion.  For  he  subscribed  tJie  book  that 
was  soon  afterwards  set  out,  which  is  directly  contrary  to  those  opinions  set 
down  in  these  papert."     Burnet's  Hist.  vol.  i,  p.  289.  Ed. 


«0  CLEMENS.    No.  II. 

mislead  his  readers,  nor  to  give  his  opponent  unnecessary  trouble. 
He  would  wish  to  contend  by  fair  means  and  with  lawful  weapons^ 
Perhaps  the  greatest  disingenuity  of  this  writer  is  an  attempt 
to  persuade  his  readers,  that  the  author  of  "  Miscellanies"  had 
made  an  unprovoked  and  violent  attack  upon  the  Episcopal  Church  j 
whereas  the  fact  is  precisely  the  reverse.  This  work  he  has  been 
labouring  at  in  several  former  pieces ;  and  in  the  late  one  he  speaks 
of  a  "  bitter  newspaper  attack."  One  would  think,  from  the 
representation  given,  that  passages  quoted  had  been  mutilated,  that 
the  books  mentioned  were  intended  only  for  the  instruction  of 
Episcopalians,  that  there  was  a  design  to  deprive  them  of  the  right 
of  judging  for  themselves,  and  that  they  were  in  danger  of  beconu 
ing  an  oppi-essed  and  persecuted  sect.*  All  this  would  be  pitiable 
in  this  free  country,  were  it  true.  But  nobody  was  meddling  with 
their  a/iostolic  constitution  and  worship.  It  was  expected  that, 
like  other  sects,  they  would  declare  their  sentiments,  and  practise 
accordingly.!  I  never  heard  a  persoti  say  that  their  ministry  and 
their  ordinances  were  not  valid.  It  is  their  proclaiming  themselves 
to  be  the  only  true  Church,  and  condemning  all  others,  in  impe- 
rious and  insolent  language,  which  has  given  the  offence.  It  is  their 
reviving  exploded  doctrines  about  cliviiie  right  and  imi7iterrujUed 
succession,  and  claiming  an  exclusive  right  to  the  administration  of 
the  word  and  ordinances,  which  has  excited  both  opposition  and 
contempt.  While  I  express  myself  thus  strongly,  I  solemnly  de- 
clare that  I  have  a  high  respect  for  Episcopalians,  and  would  com- 
mune with  them  (did  circumstances  require  it)  as  well  as  admit 
them  to  commune  with  mG.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  offensive  sen- 
timents are  approved  of  by  the  denomination  at  large.  Whoever 
will  read  with  attention  the  works  which  have  been  referred  to, 
and  consider  them  in  connection  with  what  has  been  dome  by  the 
Bishop  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  State — that  he  has  re -bap- 
tised, and  re-ordained,  cannot  justly  pronounce  any  thing  which 
has  been  written  "  bitter"  or  "  vindictive."  I  know  not  what  pro- 
vocation Bishop  Seabury  had;  but  I  know  that  he  ought  not  to  have 
indulged  his  resentment  or  his  ridicule  in  a  publication  professedly 
written  for  the  purpose  of  conciliation  and  union.  The  threat,  with 
which  the  "  Layman"  concludes,  towards  the  non-episcopalians  iu 
Connecticut,  interests  me  little.  If  they  have  behaved  ill,  they 
deserve  chastisement.   I  only  plead  that  they  may  be  shown  mercy. 

CLEMENS. 

*  And  surely  if  they  are  not  allowed  to  maintain  their  principles,  because 
tnose  prmciplrs  may  in  their  consequences  affect  other  denominations,  they 
are  "  in  danpjer  of  becoming  an  oppressed  and  persecuted  sect."         £d. 

■j-  Why  then  does  this  very  writer,  towards  the  close  of  this  address, 
warmly  censure  the  Bishop  in  this  State  for  ordaining  those  who  had  not 
been  Episco])al!v  ordained  ?  Is  it  not  evident  that  the  "  viaintainhig" 
Episcopal  ordination,  and  "practising"  accordingly,  is  what  has  called  forth 
tlie  invective  andvklicule,  the  "  ojiposition  and  contenipt,"  of  the  author  of 
Miscellasies  ?  Ed. 


(     81     ) 

For  the  Albany  Ccndnel, 

POSTSCRIPT  TO  THE  LAYMAN.    No.  VIII.* 

OITUATED  at  a  great  distance  from  Albany,!  it  requires  a  nu™- 
ber  of  days  for  the  papers  to  reach  me,  and  an  equal  number  for 
my  pieces  to  be  conveyed  to  the  Editors.  I  mention  this  in  refer- 
ence to  the  interval  that  has  sometimes  occurred  between  objections 
urged  by  the  Miscellaneous  writer,  and  the  answers  which  I  have 
furnished.  The  public  may  rest  assured  it  has  not  been  owing  to 
any  intrinsic  difficulty  in  the  objections  themselves.  They  are  all 
perfectly  trite. 

I  have  a  word  or  two  to  say  to  Clemens. 

He  has  been,  indeed,  "  weak."  in  supposing  that  the  only  question 
relative  to  Timothy,  growing  out  of  the  Episcopal  controversy,  is  in 
reference  to  the  manner  of  his  ordination.  It  is  very  easy  to  see  why 
the  advocates  of  parity  would  exclude  from  view  the  situation  of  Ti- 
mothy in  the  Church  of  Ephesus,  since  it  carries  alisolute  death  to 
their  cause.  Is  it  an  immaterial  circumstance  that  Timothy  ruled 
the  whole  Church  of  Ephesus,  both  Clergy  and  Laity,  the  Elders  or 
Presbyters  being  subject  to  his  spiritual  jurisdiction  ?  Is  it  an  imma- 
terial circumstance  that  Timothy  alone  exercised  the  power  of  or- 
daining Ministers,  and  thus  of  conveying  the  sacerdotal  authority? 
What  then  becomes  of  the  doctrine  of  parity  ?  Destroyed,  utterly 
destroyed.  Tlie  Church  of  Ephesus,  planted  by  St.  Paul,  and 
placed,  by  that  Apostle,  under  the  goA  ernment  of  Timothy,  was 
constructed  upon  a  totally  difterent  principle.  It  had,  in  Timothy, 
a  Bishop,  possessing  jurisdiction  over  the  other  Clergy,  and  exercis- 
ing all  the  pov/ers  which  are  claimed  for  the  Bishops  of  the  Chuixh 
now.  Is  it  of  no  consequence  that  the  ancients,  who  speak  on  the 
subject,  unanimously  represent  Timothy  as  the  first  Bishop  of 
Ephesus  ?  What  says  Eusebius  ?  "  He  was  the  first  Bishop  of  the 
province  or  diocese  of  Ephesus."  Eccl.  Hist.  Bib.  iii.  chap.  4. 
What  says  Chrysostom  ?  "  It  is  manifest  Timothy  was  intrusted 
with  a  whole  nation,  viz.  Asia."  Hom.  15th  in  1  Tim.  v.  19.  Theo- 
doret  calls  him  the  Apostle  of  the  Asiatics.  The  Apostolical  con- 
stitutions expressly  tell  us  that  he  was  ordained  Bishop  of  Ephesus 
by  St.  Paul ;  and  in  the  council  of  Chalcedon,  twenty-seven  Bishops 
are  said  to  have  preceded  him  in  the  government  of  that  Church. 

We  are  perfectly  safe,  then,  so  far  as  relates  to  Timothy,  in 
resting  our  cause  upon  the  situation  which  he  occupied  at  Ephe- 
sus, and  on  the  powers  which  he  exercised  there.  The  constitution 
of  the  Church  of  Ephesus  was  undeniably  Episcopal.  This  part  of 
the  subject  the  advocates  of  parity  do  not  choose  to  meddle  with, 
running  off  constantly  to  the  term  Presbytery^  that  poor  word 
being  the  chief  basis  of  their  cause. 

We  next  show  that  tlierc  is  no  proof  of  the  ordination  of  Ti- 


•  Tliis  Postscript  is  hrre  inserted  separate  froin  the  number  to  which  it 
%va»  annexed,  ak  it  contains  an  answer  to  the  remarks  of  Clemens.     Ed. 

t  The  Layman  removed  from  Albr^ny  uficr  he  had  Vt'ritten  his  twotirst 
niimbvs.  .  -"'i'^' 

M 


82         POSTSCRIPT  TO  THE  LAYMAN.     No.  VIII. 

mothy  being  Presbyterial,  and  that  the  evidence  of  scripture, 
even  on  this  point,  is  decidedly  in  favour  of  the  Episcopal  sys- 
tem. But  we  do  not  rely  on  the  verses  wherein  St.  Paul  ex- 
horts Timothy  as  to  the  gift  that  is  in  him,  because  the  manner 
of  the  ordination  of  Timothy  cannot  be  reduced  from  the  evi- 
dence of  scripture  to  absolute  certainty.  But  in  reference  to  tlie 
powers  which  Timothy  possessed  in  the  Church  of  Ephesus,  and- 
to  the  Episcopal  constitution  of  that  Church,  there  is  not  a  sha- 
dow of  doubt.  On  this  we  rest  our  cause,  contenting  ourselves,  in 
Illation  to  the  manner  of  the  ordination  of  Timothy,  with  showing 
that  there  is  no  evidence  of  its  being  Presbyterial,  and  that  the  tes-. 
timony  of  scripture  goes  strongly,  if  not  with  certainty,  to  prove 
that  it  was  Episcopal.  Having  a  certain  proof  to  rely  on,  we  do 
not  rely  on  another  which,  though  strong,  is,  nevertheless,  not  ab- 
solutely cei'tain.  As  an  additional  reason  for  this,  the  advocates 
of  parity  have  no  answer  to  make  to  the  first  of  these  proofs,  while 
they  evade  the  latter  by  dwelling  upon  names.  It  is  in  this  point  of 
view  that  the  subject  is  placed  in  the  Companion  for  the  Festivals, 
and  in  the  first  address  which  I  submitted  to  tlie  public.  The  rea- 
der can  turn  to  the  pieces  and  judge  for  himself. 

Clemens  tells  us  that  the  Presbyters  of  Alexandria  ordained  their 
Bishops  for  two  hundred  years.  All  I  have  to  say  is,  that  the  Pres- 
byters of  Alexandria  never  did  ordain  their  Bishops.  Why  did  not 
Clemens  produce  liis  proof?  The  reason  is  very  plain.  He  was 
aware  that  it  is  utterly  insufficient,  and  will  not  bear  examination. 
As  soon  as  he  attempts  to  substantiate  his  assertion,  it  will  be  time 
enough  to  go  into  that  part  of  the  subject. 

Clemens  is  not  candid  in  relation  to  that  part  of  my  piece  in- 
which  I  observe  that  Episcopalians  have  never  relied  upon  names. 
He  would  lead  the  reader  to  suppose  that  they  do  not  rely  upon  pas- 
sages of  scripture.  On  these,  indeed,  the  Episcopal  cause  is  ground- 
ed. I  said,  and  I  repeat  it,  that  the  true  question  is  as  to  the  or- 
ders of  Ministers  that  were  established  in  the  Church,  and  that  this 
question  is  to  be  determined,  not  by  names  ov  titles  of  office,  but  by 
the  authorities  exevcised.  It  is  upon  names  or  tit  lea  oj  office  that 
the  advocates  of  parity  rest  their  system*  These  are  of  general  sig^ 
nification,  and  prove  nothing  on  either  side.  But  on  this  point  I 
have  already  said  enough,  and  more  than  enough. 
•  I  admitted  that  ineta  is  sometimes  used  for  dia  ;  but  I  said,  and  1' 
appeal  to  every  Greek  scholar  for  the  accuracy  of  it,  that  dia  is  a 
much  more  appropriate  term  than  meta  to  express  the  cause  of  a 
thing ;  that  dia  emphatically  denotes  the  instrumental  cause,  that 
meta  emphatically  denotes  concurrence  ;  and  that  although  meta  is 
sometimns  used  for  dia,  yet  the  above  is  the  reigning  sense  of  the 
words,  and  the  reigning  distinction  between  them.  But  suppose  I 
admit  all  that  Clemens  says  about  dia  and  meta^  of  what  avail  will 
it  be  to  his  cause  ?  Let  him  prove  that  the  Presbytery  spoken  of 
in  the  first  Epistle  to  'I'imothy  were  upon  a  level  with  the  Elders  of 
Ephesus.  Let  him  prove  that  they  were  not  Apostles.  Until  he  does 
this,  he  does  nothing ;  and  if  he  ventures  upon  the  task,  he  will  only 
give  us  the  old  story  of  names  over  again. 

As  to  the  passage  in  the  Epistle  to  Titus,  "  For  this  cause  left 
I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldest  set  in  order  the  things  tliat  are 


DETECTOR.    No.  I.  83 

wanting,  and  ordain  Elders  in  every  city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee," 
I  have  only  to  say,  that  it  clearly  conveys  the  idea  of  Paul  having 
ordained  Titus  to  his  office,  and  that  such  is  the  construction  of  the 
most  judicious  commentators.  Add  to  this,  that  the  united  voice  of 
primitive  writers  represents  him  as  having  been  ordained  by  the 
Apostle  Paul. 

Clemens  endeavours  to  make  me  contradict  myself.  "  First  the 
Pre&bytery  coiisisted  of  yl/wstles^  and  afterwards  they  are  changed 
into  Presbyters," 

It  is  not  that  I  contradict  myself,  but  that  Clemens  is  disin- 
genuous. Of  this  let  the  reader  judge.  My  object  is  to  prove 
Ihat  the  passage  in  the  first  Epistle  to  Timothy  docs  not  sup- 
port Presbyter ial  ordination.  In  order  to  this,  I  show  first,  that 
the  Presbytery  spoken  of,  according  to  all  the  rules  of  just  reason- 
ing, were  Apostles :  at  all  events,  that  it  cannot  be  proved  they 
■were  upon  a  level  with  tlie  Elders  of  Ephesus,  and  that  until  this  is 
proved,  the  cause  of  parity  can  receive  no  sort  of  support  fi-om 
the  passage.  This  is  my  first  ground.  I  then  suppose,  for  the 
sake  of  argument,  that  they  were  nothing  more  than  Presbyters,  in 
the  modern  sense  of  the  term,  and  show,  even  under  this  idea,  that 
the  passage  makes  nothing  for  the  cause  of  parity,  since  Paul  con- 
veyed the  authority,  and  the  Presbytery  merely  expressed  approba- 
tion. Is  there  any  inconsistency  here  ?  Surely  not.  No  mode  of 
reasoning  is  more  common  or  more  natural. 

As  to  the  question  of  Clemens,  '•'•Ifthey  tvere  Afiostles^  inhere  was 
the  necessity  of  more  than  one  laying  on  hands  ?"  the  answer  is 
easy.  One  of  them  may  have  performed  the  act  of  ordination ;  that 
is,  one  of  them  may  have  conveyed  the  sacerdotal  authority,  while 
the  rest  may  have  imposed  hands,  to  give  additional  solemnity  to  tlie 
transaction,  and  as  an  expression  of  concurrence  in  the  selection  of 
character. 


For  the  Albany  CentineU 

DETECTOR.    No.  I. 

X  HE  Episcopal  Church  is  defended  with  such  ability  and  zeal  I)y 
^'  A  Layman,"  and  by  "  Cyprian,"  that  its  friends  would  probably 
not  excuse  me  for  attempting  to  share  with  these  writers  the  honours 
of  victory.  The  regular  examination  of  the  subject,  hoAvcver, 
which  they  proposed,  may  probably  prevent  them  from  noticing,  for 
some  time,  the  observations  of  a  new  assailant  of  the  Episcopal  cause, 
Mark  the  following  singular  assertion  of  a  writer  who  comes  for- 
ward under  the  venerable  name  of  "  Clemens."  "  In  the  celebrat- 
ed Church  of  Alexandria,  Presbyters  ordained  their  own  Bishops 
for  more  than  two  lumdred  years,  in  the  earliest  ages  of  Christi- 
anity." In  proof  of  this  assei'tion,  he  refei-s  to  no  authorities.  lie 
would  lead  his  readers  to  believe  that  it  is  an  indubitable  and  uni- 
versally acknowledged  fact.  But  had  this  writer  knoum,  ccndour 
*crt£UQly  required  tliat  he  should  \ivfQ  informed  lus  readers,  that 


34  DETECTOR.    No.  I. 

the  only  ecclesiastical  writer  of  the  five  first  centuries  who  affords 
even  a  shadow  of  authority  for  this  assertion  is  St.  Jerome,  who 
lived  in  the  latter  end  of  the  fourth,  and  beginning  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury. And  is  his  testimony  to  be  opposed  to  the  concurring  usage 
and  testimony  of  the  ages  before  him  i  Would  this  remarkable  fact 
have  been  passed  over  by  Clemens  of  Alexandria,  andOrigen  of  the 
same  Church,  Fathers  of  the  second  and  third  century,  who  had  in- 
finitely better  opportunities  of  knowing  the  state  of  their  own 
Church  than  Jerome  possessed  ? 

But  the  truth  is,  that  Jerome  affords  no  authority  for  this  asser- 
tion. In  his  Epistle  to  Evag.  he  says,  "  Nam  et  Alexandria;  Marco 
Evangilista  usque  ad  Heraclam  et  Dionysium  Episcopos,  Presby- 
teri  semper  unum  ex  se  electum,  excelsiori  gradu  coUocatum, 
Episcopum  nominabant^  quomodo  si  exercitus  imperatorem  faciat, 
aut  diaconi  eligant  de  se  quem  industrium  noverint,  et  archidiaco- 
num  vocent."  "  At  Alexandria,  from  Mark  down  to  Heraclas 
and  Dionysius  the  Bishops,  the  Presbyters  always  named  one,  who 
being  chosen  from  among  themselves,  they  called  their  Bishop,  he 
being  placed  in  a  higher  station,  in  the  same  manner  as  if  an  army 
should  make  their  general,  &c."  Does  St.  Jerome  here  declare,  as 
the  fictitious  "  Clemens"  asserts,  that  "  the  Presbyters  ordained 
their  Bishop?"  No;  Jerome  mei'ely  asserts  that  the  Presbyters 
named,  chose  one  to  be  their  Bishop.  Does  it  hence  follow  that 
they  gave  him  his  commission  ;  that  they  ordained  him  ?  Does  it 
always  follow,  that  because  an  army  choose  their  general,  he  does 
not  receive  his  commission  from  the  supreme  authority  of  the  State  ? 

The  custom  at  Alexandria,  accoi'ding  to  Jei'ome,  was  the  same  that 
now  prevails  with  us.  The  Conventions  of  the  Church  in  the 
several  States  nai7ie,  choose  their  Bishops.  "  Clemens"  might 
hence  infer  and  assert  that  the  State  Conventions  ordained  their 
Bishops.  Whereas,  in  fact,  though  they  choose,  iiame  persons  for 
that  office,  they  have  no  agency  in  ordaining  the  persons  thus 
elected.  This  is  performed  by  the  Bishops — by  them  alone  Epis- 
copal authoi-ity  is  conferred.  Does  it  follow  then,  that  because, 
siccording  to  St.  Jerome  (and  he  lived  in  the  end  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, and  preceding  writers  afford  no  authority  for  his  assertion), 
the  Presbyters  of  Alexandria  chose  their  Bishop,  that  they  also 
ordained  him,  vested  him  with  the  Episcopal  authority  i  Such  a 
construction  of  his  words  would  make  him  contradict  the  unequivo- 
cal testimony  of  the  pi'imitivc  historians,  from  whom  it  apjjears  that 
Bishops  always  ordained  Bishops.  Such  a  construction  of  his  wordss 
would  make  him  contradict  himself :  For  he  expressly  says  (and 
let  the  opponents  of  Episcopacy  mark  well  his  words),  "  Quid 
enim  facit,  excefita  ordinatione,  Episcopus,  quod  Presbyter  non 
faciat?"  "  What  does  a  Bishop  do,  which  a  Presbyter  cannot, 
excefit  ordination  ?" 

It  will  l)e  absurd  to  say,  that  though  in  the  time  of  St.  Jerome, 
Bishops  alone  possessed  the  power  of  ordination,  yet  that  this 
was  a  change  in  the  primitive  institutions  I  When  did  this 
»-hange  take  place  ?  When  did  the  Bishops  usurp  this  power  ? 
At  what  age  did  all  the  Presbyters  in  the  Christian  world  thus 
basely  relinquish  their  rights  ?  St.  Jerome  had  quarrelled  with 
■■i.  Bi'jhi'p  of  the  Church  ;   lie   was  urged  by  his   resentment  t« 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  XVIIL  %S 

degrade  the  Episcopal  order  as  much  as  possible.*  He  strips 
them  of  every  power,  ordination  excepted.  This  he  dare  not 
touch ; — this  he  does  not  charge  as  an  usurpation  ; — this  he  ad- 
mits as  the  sacred  prerogative  of  Bishops.  To  suppose  then  that 
St.  Jerome,  who  expressly  excepts  ordination  from  the  power  of 
Presbyters,  designed  in  anotlier  passage  to  give  them  this  power — 
the  power  of  ordaining  even  a  superior  order,  would  make  him 
guilty  of  palpable  contradiction  and  absurdity.  What  says  he  in 
other  parts  of  his  writings?  "What  Aaron,  his  sons  the  Priests, 
and  the  Levites  are  in  the  temple,  the  same  are  Bishops,  Presby- 
ters, and  Deacons  in  the  Church."  "  The  power  of  riches,  or  the 
humility  of  poverty,  does  not  make  a  Bishop  higher  or  lower  ;  but 
they  are  all  successor.t  of  the  Afiostles."  This  is  his  language 
in  his  Epistle  to  Evagrius.  In  his  catalogue  of  ecclesiastical  wri- 
ters he  asserts,  that  St.  James  the  just  was  ordained  by  the  Apostles 
Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  Timothy  Bishop  of  Ephesus  by  St.  Paul,  and 
Polycarp  Bishop  of  Smyrna,  by  St.  John.  To  impute  to  a  writer, 
■who  speaks  of  Bishops  as  successors  of  the  Afiostles^  and  ordained 
by  theiHy  the  extravagant  and  contradictory  opinion  that  Bishops 
originally  derived  their  power  from  Presbyters,  would  certainly 
entirely  destroy  the  weight  of  his  testimony. 

The  public  will  now  judge,  what  credit  is  due  to  a  writer  who, 
to  support  his  cause,  is  compelled  to  rely  on  one  of  the  Fathers  at 
the  close  of  the  fourth  century,  and  to  distort  and  misrepresent  his 
meaning. 

The  plainest  subjects  may  be  darkened  and  perplexed.  It  is 
much  to  be  lamented,  that  there  appears  no  reluctance  in  the  oppo- 
nents of  Episcopacy  to  employ  those  arts,  which,  alas !  too  often 
obscure  the  evidence  of  ti-uth,  and  perpetuate  the  reign  of  error. 

DETECTOR. 


For  the  Albany  CentineU 
MISCELLANIES.    No.  XVIIL 


I 


HAVE  never  seen  the  constitution  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in 
this  country,  and  do  not  know  how  far  it  is  conformable  to  that  of 
the  same  denomination  in  Europe.  I  only  knov/  that  a  Minister  of 
the  Lutheran  Church  was  considered  by  the  Bishop  of  the  Episco- 
pal Church  in  this  State  as  a  mere  Layman  ;  and  that  he  was  or- 
dained first  a  Deacon,  and  afterwards  a  Priest.  The  Bishop  and 
his  proselyte,  in  order  to  made  sure  work,  went  about  also  the 
baptism  of  two  of  the  children  of  the  new  convert  to  Episcopacy, 
though  they  had  been  baptized  before  by  a  Lutheran  Minister. 
From  these  circumstances  I  infer,  that  the  Lutherans  have  not,  in 
the  opinion  of  Episcopalians,  a  duly  authorized  Priesthood  in  this 
country.    I  have  heard  it  said  -tliat  the  Rev.  Dr.  Kunze,  who  has 

*  And  he  was  also  indignant  at  the  attempt  of  seme  Deacons  to  encroach 
on  his  office  of  Presbyter.  From  both  these  circumstances  he  -a  as  desirous, 
at  much  iis  possible,  to  exalt  his  oflice  of  Presbyter.  Edj 


56  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XVIII. 

some  rank  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  is  a  man  of  great  learning 
and  worth,  had  been  preparinjy  to  publish  on  the  subject,  and  to 
chastise  the  indignity  offered  him  by  his  Episcopal  neighbours,  but 
that  from  some  motive  or  other  he  had  been  induced  to  lay  it  aside. 
Much  was  expected  from  the  acknowledged  abilities  of  the  Doctor, 
and  no  small  dread  had  fallen  upon  the  Episcopalians.  Whether 
any  compromise  took  place,  and  what  it  was,  I  have  not  learned. 

The  French  gentleman  who  preaches  in  the  city  of  New-York 
took  his  degrees  also  from  the  Bishop  of  this  State.  As  I  never 
thouo-ht  it  worth  the  inquiry,  so  I  cannot  tell  whether  lie  came  front 
Geneva  or  one  of  the  cantons  of  Switzerland  ;  whether  he  was  or- 
dained before  his  arrival,  or  whether  he  ever  ought  to  have  beea 
ordained  at  all.  It  is  certain  that  he  did  preach  before  he  passed 
under  the  Bishop's  hands,  and  so  must  have  brought  with  him  a  sort 
of  warrant  for  his  conduct.  It  is  as  certain  that  the  Bishop  consi- 
dered him  as  having  no  commission,  otherwise  he  would  not  have 
deposed  him,  and  fitted  him  out  anew.  No  regret  has  been  ex- 
pressed by  non-episcopalians  for  the  loss  of  these  two  men,  nor  will 
it  be  expressed  for  any  who  depart  in  this  manner.  These  words 
of  the  Apostle  John  are  applicable  here  :  "  They  went  out  from  us, 
but  they  were  not  of  us."  Their  absence  will  not  be  missed  by 
those  whom  they  have  left,  nor  can  they  be  any  acquisition  to  those 
■whom  they  have  joined.  No  general  would  think  himself  safe  in 
an  army  of  deserters.  The  Apostle  James  says,  "  A  double  minded 
man  is  unstable  in  all  his  ways." 

When  an  Episcopal  Priest,  nov/  settled  in  New-Jersey,  left  the 
communion  of  the  Romish  Church,  he  published  a  justification  of 
himself.  The  present  Bishop  of  that  Church,  in  Maryland,  called 
him  to  an  account,  and  belaboured  him  not  a  little.  The  Bishop 
alleged  as  a  principal  reason  of  the  Priest's  apostacy,  that  he 
wished  to  take  unto  himself  a  wife.  With  the  Bishop's  leave,  thit 
^vas  no  bad  reason.  The  celibacy  of  the  Popish  Clergy  is  none  of 
the  smallest  corruptions  in  their  Church,  against  which  every  ortho- 
dox Clergyman  will  protest.  I  have  seen  no  justification  by  either 
of  the  two  persons  who  have  been  mentioned.  Though  the  chief 
thing  is  to  be  persuaded  in  their  own  minds,  yet  it  might  have  been 
useful  to  othei-s,  to  have  briefly  pointed  out  how  they  obtained  light, 
and  its  operation  upon  them.'  Charity  towards  their  blinded  bre- 
thren, and  that  zeal  which  commonly  distinguishes  those  who  change 
sides,  would  naturally  lead  to  this.  When  Arnold,  during  the  Re- 
volutionary war,  went  over  to  the  British  army,  he  pleaded  consci- 
ence, and  to  show  that  he  was  sincere,  immediately  carried  fire  and 
sword  into  the  State  of  Virginia.  I  grant  that  this  was  not  quite  a 
similar  case;  for  had  the  Americans  taken  Arnold,  they  would  have 
hanged  him,  and  therefore  it  was  wise  to  say  his  prayers  in  time ; 
but  with  respect  to  these  ecclesiastical  fugitives,  nobody  pursues 
ihem,  nobody  has  offered  as  great  a  i-eward  for  their  appi-ehension 
as  he  would  for  a  run-away  sei-vant.  Some  Methodist  Episcopal 
preachers  have  been  also  re-ordained,  Bishops  Coke  and  Asbury 
not  \v  i  th  standing. 

I  cannot  think  it  politic  in  the  Episcopal  Priests  to  carry  matters 
with  such  a  high  hand.  The  words  of  the  Apostle  Paul  arc,  "  Hast 
tiiou  faith  ?  have  it  to  thyself  before  God,"  If  tiiey  believe  that  they 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  XVIII.  tT 

are  right  as  to  their  Priesthood,  this  is  no  reason  why  they  should 
set  up  their  Church  as  the  only  true  one,  and  seek  to  deprive  all 
ethers  of  the  privilege  of  judging  for  themselves.*  This  isto  do  the 
very  thing  against  which  they  protested  in  the  Church  of  Rome. 
She  imposed  articles  of  faith  and  practice  under  the  most  dreadful 
pains,  so  that  no  honest  man  could  live  longer  in  the  same  house 
■with  her.  Men  were  obliged  to  flee  for  their  lives;  and  it  seems 
that  the  Protestant  Episcopalians  did  not  depart  empty  handed ; 
they  carried  with  tliem  "  the  succession  of  Bishops,"  and  the  Pope 
has  been  advertising  them  ever  since  for  thieves  and  robbers. 

It  was  not  to  have  been  expected  that  so  late  as  in  the  nineteenth 
centuiy,  particularly  in  this  country,  arrogant  and  exclusive  claims 
would  have  been  set  up  by  any.f  At  the  Reformation,  when  the 
Church  was  just  emerging  from  popery,  a  divei-sity  of  opinion  was 
natural.  Settled  prejudices,  interest,  and  a  seci-et  love  to  the  Ro- 
mish Church,  had  a  powerful  influence  upon  many.  The  Israelites, 
after  their  deliverance  from  bondage,  "  remembered  the  leeks,  and' 
the  onions,  and  the  garlick  which  they  did  eat  in  Egypt."  I^et  it 
be  considered,  too,  that  the  King  of  England  became  the  head  of  the 
Church  there,  and  it  was  so  connected  with  the  state,  as  to  render 
a  return  to  the  primitive  constitution  extremely  difficult.  Even  then^ 
the  greatest  and  best  of  the  Reformers  admitted  Presbyterian  ordina- 
tion to  be  valid;  and  those  who  contended  for  Episcopacy  did  it  not 
on  the  principle  o{  divine  rights  but  of  cxfiediency  or  necesst'tij.jf. 
Dr.  Bancroft,  afterwards  Bishop  of  London,  and  lastly  Ardibishop  of 
Canterbury,  was  the  first  who  publicly  maintained,  in  the  reign  of 
Elizabeth,  that  the  Bishops  of  England  were  a  distinct  order  from 
Priests,  and  had  superiority  over  them  by  divine  7-z§'/iLl\  This  v,'as  at 


•  Is  it  not  enough  that  this  author  indulges  in  a  constant  vein  of  lidicuje 
and  abuse  of  the  Episcopal  Clergy  ;  but  will  he  persist  in  inisrepresenting 
them  ?  When  have  they  sought "  to  deprive  others  of  the  privilege  ot' 
judging  for  themselves:"  Ed. 

t  Tlicse  "  arrogant  and  exclusive  claims"  were  avowed  by  the  Church 
Universal  for  fifteen  hundred  years,  till  the  time  of  Calvin.  Is  it  not 
astonishing  that  a  follower  of  Calvin  will  thus  const?.ntly  inveigh  against 
•'  arrogant  and  exclusive  claims?"  If  it  were  proper  to  retort  in  the  style 
cf  this  author,  it  might  be  asked,  What  claims  moie  arrogant  and  exclusive 
than  thbse  \yliich  confine  the  grace  andtnerry  of  God  to  the  elect,  while  the- 
rest  cf  mankind  are  passed  by,  and,  Kztbout  any  provision  for  their  recovery  ^ 
perinitted  to  perish  in  their  sins?  Alas  !  how  often  do  we  notice  the  t)wtc 
that  is  in  our  brother's  eye,  and  are  ignorant  of  the  beam,  in  our  own  i  Ed. 

\  This  perem])tory  and  imsupported  asiertion  the  reader  may  be  assured 
is  unfounded;  and  he  will  find  proofs  of  this  in  the  notes  to  Clemens, 
No.  II.  in  Detector,  No.  II.  and  in  several  cf  the  notes  in  the  follow- 
ing pages.  The  candid  reader  will  find  the  Church  of  England,  and 
her  best  and  most  able  divines,  fully  vindicated  from  the  charge  of  deny- 
ing the  divine  right  of  Euibcopacy,  by  the  late  Dr.  Chandler,  of  New- 
Jersey,  in  the  various  pamphlets  which  he  published  under  the  titles  of 
"  The  Appeal,"  "  The  Appeal  Defended,"  and  "  The  Appeal  further 
Defcniled."  Ed. 

II  This  is  another  mistake  of  the  author  of  Miscellanies.  "  Bancroft 
was  the  first  who  maintained  that  Bishops  were  superior  to  Priests  by  dixine 
right."  Now,  without  relying  en  the  I'piniou  of  Cranmer,  who,  according 


88  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XVIII. 

that  time  a  doctrine  so  new  and  strange  as  to  give  great  offence  t« 
many  of  the  Clergy  and  of  the  Court.  In  the  United  States  of  Ame- 
rica there  were  not  the  same  difficulties  which  were  in  the  way  of  the 
first  Reformers.  How  astonishing  then  to  find  sentiments  advanced 
in  this  country,  and  at  this  day,  in  language  bold,  imperious,  and 
as  though  on  purpose,  to  insult  and  provoke  other  denominations  I 
How  much  wiser  to  have  followed  the  early  advice  of  Dr.  White, 
now  the  Bishop  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Pennsylvania ! 

The  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  if  she  may  be  allowed  to  speak 
for  herself,  agrees  exactly  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  definition  of  the  visible  Church.  The  words  are  as  follow ; 
«'  The  marks  by  which  the  true  Church  is  known  are  these  :  if  the 
pure  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  is  preached  therein :  if  she  maintains 
the  pure  administration  of  the  sacraments  as  instituted  by  Christ : 
if  Church  discipline  is  exercised  in  punishing  of  sin  :  in  short,  if  all 
things  are  managed  according  to  the  pure  word  of  God,  all  things 
contrary  thereto  rejected ;  and  Jesus  Christ  acknowledged  as  the 
only  Head  of  the  Church."*  She  declares  fm-ther,  "  As  for  the 
Ministers  of  God's  word,  they  have  equally  the  same  power  and 
authority  wheresoever  they  are,  as  they  ai'e  all  Ministers  of  Clmst, 
the  only  universal  Bishop,  and  the  only  Head  of  the  Church."! 
Still  more  express  are  these  words,  in  the  18tli  Explanatory  Article 
of  her  government:  "  All  Ministers  of  the  Gospel  are  equal  in  rank 
and  authority  ;  all  are  Bishops,  or  overseers  in  the  Church ;  and 
all  are  equally  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God.  No  superiority 
shall  therefore  be  ever  claimed  or  acknowledged  by  one  minister 
over  another,  nor  shall  there  be  any  Lords  over  God's  heritage  in 
the  Reformed  Dutch  Churches."^:  Here  is  nothing  but  a  plain 
declaration  of  her  faith,  as  to  the  orders  in  tlie  Church,  which  she 
had  an  undoubted  right  to  make,  and  has  made  without  oiFence. 
Little  did  she  think  that  in  this  country  a  sect  would  spring  up  who, 
because  she  has  not  a  priesthood  exactly  after  the  Episcopal  pat- 
tern cast  in  England,  ||  denies  the  validity  of  her  ordinances,  charges 

to  Bishop  Burnet, "  fully  ov/ns  the  divine  institution  of  Bishops  and  Priests," 
let  us  attend  to  the  opinions  of  Whitgrift,  the  predecessor  of  Bancroft 
in  the  See  of  Canterbury.  In  a  book  which  he  published  before  he  was 
advanced  to  the  See  of  Canterbury,  in  answer  to  an  attack  upon  the  Church 
of  England,  he  maintains,  according  to  the  declaration  of  one  of  the  Puri- 
tans themselves,  T/je  superiority  of  ail  the  Bishops  over  the  inferior  Clergy 
froTTi  God's  own  ordinance.  Strype's  Life  of  Whitgrift,  book  iv. 
chap.  3,  p.  350.  He  dockired  tlie  same  sentiment  in  his  famous  letter  to 
Beea.  ^Though  Whitgrift,  in  opposing  some  erroneous  notions  of  the 
Puritahs,  contended  that  Church  government,  meaning  to  include  under 
this  term  only,  matters  of  inferior  discipline,  rites,  and  ceremonies,  was 
changeable ;  yet  he  certainly  maintained  the  divine  right  of  the  Episcopal 
authority.  Hd. 

*  Confession,  Art  xxix.  f  Art.  .x.xxi. 

\  Whom  does  the  Retormed  Dutch  Church  mean  by  "  Lords  over  God's 
heritage.'"  ^d. 

II  This  "  sect  sprang  up"  in  the  time  of  the  Apnstle  Paul,  who  consti- 
tuted Timothy  and  Titus  the  heads  of  the  Churches  of  Ephesus  and  Crete, 
claiming  tlie  obedience  of  the  other  orders  of  Ministers  whom  they  were  to 
•rdain.     This  "  sect  sprang  up"  in  th«  tima  of  the  Apostle  John,  who,  un- 


Ti/MPIRE'.  89 

her  with  the  sin  of  schism,  and  denounces  her  Tinernbers  unless 
they  come  into  the  Episcopal  Church.  The  preachiDg  of  "  the 
pure  doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  the  pure  administration  of  the  sacra-? 
ments,"  pass  for  nothing  with  the  author  of  '"  A  Coir.p  inicn  fur  the 
Festivals,"  h.c.  without  his  Bishops,  Priests  and  Der.cons.*  Con- 
gregationalists  and  Independents,  Lutherans  and  Presbyterians, 
Methodists  and  Baptists,  High  Dutch  and  Low  Dutch,  all  descrip- 
tions are  mowed  down  by  the  hage  scythe  of  this  ecclesiastical 
giant. 


I'^or  the  Albany  CentineL 
UMPIRE. 


A 


WRITER,  under  the  signature  of  "  Cyprian,"  having  under- 
taken to  prove,  from  scripture,  and  the  testimony  of  the  primitive 
Church,  that  "  the  fortress  of  Episcopacy  is  erected  upon  the  same 
rock  on  which  Christianity  itself  is  founded,"  I  wish  he  would  be 
as  perspicuous,  consistent,  fair,  concise,  and  deal  as  little  in  mere 
assertions,  as  possible.  There  seems  to  be  a  defect  in  all  these 
things  in  what  he  has  already  written.  Not  to  mention  what  he 
says  about  the  Avords  of  our  Lord  to  his  disciples  on  the  occasion  of 
the  request  of  the  mother  of  Zebedee's  children,  artd  which  he 
ought  to  review,  let  me  instance  only  in  what  he  says  respecting 
the  superiority  of  Titus  over  Presbyters.  After  repeatedly  assert- 
ing in  the  strongest  m?.nTier,  that  Paul  had  ordained  Presbyters  or 
Elders  in  Crete  before  he  left  Titus  there,  he  confidently  asks, 
"  If  thei'e  were  Presbyters,  and  tjiose  Presbyters  had  the  power  of 
ordination,  why  was  it  necessary  to  leave  Titus  amongst  them  in 
order  to  perform  a  task  that  might  as  well  have  been  accomplished 
without  him  ?"  It  would  be  a  more  proper  question  to  ask,  Where 
was  the  necessity  to  leave  Titus  at  all  in  Crete,  since  Eiders  had 
been  already  ordained  ?t    "  Cyprian"  is  not  aware  of  the  absurdity 

der  the  title  of  '  Angels,'  addresses  the  Bishops  of  the  seven  Churches  of 
Asia.  Here  is  the  "  pattern"  after  which  the  American  Episcopacy  was 
•'cast** — a  "  pattern"  admired  and  enjoined  by  the  venerable  Ignatius,  the 
disciple  of  St.  John.  Alas!  that,  in  the  present  day,  it  should  be  a  serious 
crime  to  vindicate  a  "  sect"  which  has  the  Apostle  Paul,  that  chosen  vessel 
of  the  Saviour,  the  Apostle  John,  the  heicmed  of  his  divine  Master,  and  the 
holy  martyr  Ignatius  for  its  illustrious  founders.  Alas!  that  in  these  latter 
ages  the  Apostolic  and  Primitive  "pattern"  should  be  derided  and 
rejected ;  should  be  displaced  by  the  sjjurious  "  pattern"  cast  in  V.xe  Jf^eernli  cJ'^y 
century  at  Geneva.  .  E.!. 

*  It  is  tlie  express  design  of  the  author  of  the  "  Companion  for  the  Fes- 
tivals," Sec.  to  enforce  the  preaching  of  the  "  pure  doctrine  of  the  Gospel," 
and  "  the  pure  administration  of  the  sacraments  ;"  and,  in  order  to  this,  he 
is  desirous  that  the  Gospel  should  be  preached,  and  the  sacraments  admi- 
nistered by  those  who  have  received  a  rcPtdar  cominission.  For  surely  to  the 
pure  administration  of  the  sacraments  valid  authority  is  necessary.     £.d. 

t  Were  there  no  new  Elders  necessary  in  Crete,  for  the  purpose  of  or- 
daining wljiom  Titus  was  left  there  bv  St.  Paul;  Ed. 

N 


90 


UMPIRE. 


in  making  the  Apostle  "  ordain  Elders  in  every  country  in  which  lift 
made  proselytes — those  who  were  absolutely  necessary  to  transact 
the  aiFairs  of  the  Church  during  his  absence,  and  then  leaving  Titus 
there  that  he  might  re-ordain  them.  Nor  does  he  advert  to  the  dis- 
tinction  o{ /ireaching  and  ruling  Elders  ;  the  latter  of  whom  are  al- 
ways ordained  by  a  single  Presbyterian  Minister  when  a  congrega- 
tion is  to  be  organized.  To  what  does  the  argument  of  "  Cyprian" 
amount  ?  Paul  left  Titus  in  Crete  that  he  should  ordain  Elders,  and 
therefore  Paul  ordained  Titus,  (so  the  "  Layman"  says)  gave  liim 
authority  over  both  Clergy  and  Laity,  constituted  him  a  diocesan 
Bishop.  ThJs  reasoning  will  not  convince  judicious  and  candid 
men. 

But  it  will  be  said,  that  the  argument  is  this  :  Since  Paul  Iiad  or- 
dained Elders  in  every  city,  if  these  had  power  to  ordain  others, 
there  was  no  necessity  to  leave  Titus  there  for  that  very  purpose. 
It  is  answered,  that  the  express  words  of  Paul  are,  "  that  thou 
shouldest  set  in  order  the  things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  El- 
ders." Whether  Paul  had  ordained  Elders  or  not,  there  were 
some  things  wanting  which  Titus  was  to  see  performed  according 
to  directions  given  him  by  the  Apostle.  New  congregations,  pi'o-. 
bably,  were  to  be  organized ;  more  officers  were  to  be  added  to 
those  already  formed;  and  if  these  were  only  ruling  Elders,  they 
had  no  authority  to  ordain  ;  or  if  a  sufficient  number  there  had  au- 
thority, they  were  new  in  the  office,  and  needed  the  special  direc- 
tions of  the  Apostle,  by  Titus,  how  they  should  proceed.  There  is 
proof  that  Titus  was  not  fixed  at  Crete,  and  made  "  a  si^Jreme  ru- 
ler of  the  Church.''  He  was  to  execute  a  particular  business,  which>^ 
■when  executed,  his  commission  as  to  this  ceased.* 

In  giving  the  testimony  of  the  primitive  Avriters,  it  is  hoped  that 
*'  Cyprian"  will  not  miss  Clemens^  Romanus,  and  Polijcarji.  Their 
■writings  are  tlie  earliest  which  have  been  preserved,  and  are  al- 
lowed to  be  authentic.  It  will  be  desirable  too,  if,  in  quoting  the 
"words  of  Jerome^  he  can  give  some  more  obvious  and  rational  iiv- 
terpretation  of  them,  than  the  author  of  "  A  Companion  for  the 
Festivals,"  Sec.  has  done. 

When  he  enters  upon  the  doctrine  of  uninterrupted  siiccession,  it 
will  be  expected  that  he  define  it  with  precision,  and  .bring  satisfac- 
tory proof  of  its  existence.!  He  must  trace  the  Bishops  of  Rome 
up  to  the  Apostles,  and  the  English  Bishops  up  to  the  Church  of 


*  Rut  why  shonld  Titus  he  sent  to  Ci-etc  with  a  "  commission"  to  ordain, 
if  the  Elders  or  Presbyters  at  Crete  possessed  the  power  of  ordination  ? 
Whether  Titus  afterwards  changed  his  residence  is  of  no  consequence. 
The  removal  of  a  Bishop  from  one  district  or  diocese  to  another  does  not 
invalidale  his  Episcopal  authority.  Ed. 

f  The  reader  is  requested  to  peiiise  the  following  extract  from  the 
Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts,  which  it  is  humbly  presumed 
botli  (Iciints  the  doctrine  of  unintinrupted  succession  and  "  proves  its  exis- 
tence." 

"  As  a  divine  commission  is  required  to  qualify  any  one  to  exercise  the 
priestly  office,  there  must  be  a  succession  of  persons  authorised  from  Christ 
to  send  others  to  act  /;:  /jis  name,  or  there  can  be  no  authority  in  his  Church. 
For  if  that  tuccession  which  conveys  a  divine  comnussioii  for  the  ministry 


UMPIRE.  91 

Rome.  Here  will  be  an  opportunity  for  him  to  show,  if  he  caa, 
that  there  never  was  any  Presbyterian  ordination  before  the  days 
of  Calvin. 

A  glance  at  the  history  of  the  reformation  will  be  very  necessary, 
in  order  to  account  for  the  difference  of  sentiment  and  conduct  of 
many  of  the  English  Bishops  then,  from  the  sentimeat  and  conduct 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States— why  the 
former  did  not  hold  that  Bishops  were  suf>erior  to  Presbyters  by 
divine  right,*  and  why  they  admitted  the  validHy  of  Presbyterian 
ordination,  while  the  latter  strenuously  contend  for  the  one,  and  to- 
tally reject  the  other. 

UMPIRE. 


•ke  once  broken,  people  must  cither  go  into  the  ministry  of  their  own  accord, 
or  be  sent  by  those  who  received  wo  povcer  to  send  them.  And  it  is  surely 
■evident  that  those  persons  cannot  be  called  ministers  of  Christ,  be  consi- 
<iered  as  hit  ambassadors,  be  authorised  to  proclaim  the  testimony  of  his 
salvation,  or  to  administer  his  sacraments,  v/ho  never  received  a  commis- 
sion from  him.  As,  therefore,  it  has  been  proved  that  a  divine  commission 
to  exercise  the  ministry  was  to  be  conveyed  through  the  order  of  Bishops^ 
it  is  necessary  that  the  Episcopal  succession,  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles, 
should  be  uninterrupted. 

The  divine  Head  of  the  Chinch  has  pledged  himself  to  preserve  the 
succession  of  hia  ministry  '  to  the  end  of  the  world.'  There  is  not  the 
siightest  evidence  for  believing  that  the  succession  has  in  fact  been  in- 
terrupted: its  interruption  seems  indeed  morally  impossible.  For  it  has 
been  the  universal  practice  of  the  Church,  from  the  time  of  the  Apos- 
tles to  the  present  day,  to  receive  none  for  Bishops  who  were  not  or- 
dained by  other  Bishops.  The  consecration  of  Bishops  was  always  a  pub- 
lic solemn  act,  of  which  there  were  many  witnesses  ;  and  in  disputed  cases 
u  would  be  easy  to  discover  whether  a  person  claiming  to  be  Bishop  had 
received  a  proper  commission.  The  received  doctrine  in  every  age  of  the 
Church,  that  no  ordination  was  valid  but  that  of  Bishops,  has  been  a  con- 
stant guard  upon  the  Episcopal  succession.  It  is  in  the  highest  degree  ab- 
surd, therefore,  to  suppose  that  any  person  could  ever  have  been  permitted 
to  succeed  to  the  Episcopal  office  who  was  not  duly  commissioned. 

Nordoes  it  invalidate  this  succession,  that  the  divine  commission  to  exercise 
the  mhiistry  has  been  sometimes  conveyed  through  corrupt  and  wicked  meh  5 
since,  in  the  language  of  ovr  Church,  in  her  twenty-sixth  article:  "  Al- 
though in  tlie  visible  Church  the  evil  be  ever  mingled  with  the  good,  and 
sometime  the  evil  have  chief  authority  in  the  ministration  of  the  word  and 
sac»-anients;  yet,  forasmuch  as  they  do  not  the  same  in  their  ovmitanie,  but 
in  Christ's,  and  do  minister  by  his  cojiimission  and  authority,  vve  may  use 
their  ministry,  &c."     Catnpanionfor  the  Festivals,  ^c.  p.  32.  Ed. 

*  l'hi«  is  all  mer*  assertion.  Md, 


(     52     ) 

Foi'  the  Albany  CentineU 
MISCELLANIES.    No.  XIX. 

J.  HAD  intended  to  have  exposed  the  weakness  of  a  few  more  of 
the  arguments  used  by  the  author  of  "  A  Companion  for  the  Festi- 
vals," &c.  in  favour  of  Episcopacy,  to  have  examined  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Fathers  and  to  have  produced  the  sentiments  and 
conduct  of  the  first  Reformers ;  but  copious  extracts  from  a  pam- 
phk^t  which  has  fallen  into  my  hands  will  supersede,  in  a  great 
measure)  the  necessity  of  these  things.  I  refer  to  that  published  in 
the  year  1782,  by  Dr.  White,  now  Bishop  of  the  Episcopal  Church 
in  Pennsylvania.  It  is  entitled,  "  The  Case  of  the  Episcopal 
Churches  in  the  United  States  considered."  It  is  judicious,  well 
written,  seasonable,  and  bears  evident  marks  of  the  prudence, 
liberality,  and  moderation  which  distinguish  its  amiable  author.* 

The  Bishop,  after  giving  a  representation  of  the  condition  of  the 
Episcopai  Churches  in  this  country,  in  consequence  of  the  revolu- 
tion, declares  it  to  be  his  opinion,  "that  their  future  continuance 
can  be  proviv^ed  for  on'y  by  voluntary  associations  for  union  and 
good  government."  He  then  offers  "  the  outlines  of  a  frame  of 
Church  government."  The  plan  is  in  general  to  divide  the  conti- 
nent into  smaller  and  larger  districts ;  each  of  the  smaller  to  elect 
"  a  general  vestry  or  convention,  consisting  of  a  convenient  num- 
ber (the  Minister  to  be  one)  from  the  vestry  or  congregation  of  each 
church,  or  of  every  two  or  more  churches,  according  to  their 
I'espective  ability  of  supporting  a  Minister;"  that  "  they  should 
elect  a  Clergyman  their  permanent  president.  Avho,  in  conjunction 
with  other  Clergymen  to  be  also  appointed  by  the  body,  may  exer- 
cise such  powers  as  are  purely  spiritual,  pai-ticularly  that  of  admit- 
ting to  the  ministry."  He  proposes  that  the  larger  districts  should 
be  three,  and  to  "  consist  of  a  convenient  number  of  members, 
sent  from  each  of  the  smaller  districts  severally  witliin  their 
bounds,  equally  composed  of  Clei'gy  and  laity,  and  voted  for  by 
those  orders  promiscuously  ;  the  presiding  Clergyman  to  be  always 
one,  and  these  bodies  to  meet  once  in  every  year."  He  proposes 
further,  "  a  continental  representative  body,  consisting  of  a  con- 
venient number  from  each  of  tlie  larger  districts,  formed  equally  of 


*  It  is  very  singular  that  the  author  of  Miscellanies  should  shrink  from 
the  task  of  proving  that  the  claims  of  Episcopacy  are  unfounded,  and 
should  appear  willing  to  rest  his  cause  on  an  Episcopal  Divine,  who,  at  a 
period  of  inimincnl  danger  to  his  Church,  was  anxious,  until  the  Episco- 
pal succession  could  be  obtained,  to  adopt  some  plan  of  going  on  as  well 
as  possible  without  it.  And  even  if  this  author  could  succeed  in  bringing 
a  Bislnp  of  the  Church  on  his  side,  what  woald  the  victory  avail  him  ? 
"Would  it  prove  that  the  Episcopal  Church  does  not  maintain  the  divine  f- 
Etitiition  of  Episcopacy?  An  eminent  Presbyterian  Divme  could  be  named, 
who  \.  as  la'ely  a  Fiincipcl  of  one  of  the  Crlleges  of  Aberdeen,  who  favoured 
the  Independent  or  Congregational  form  ot  Church  govcrnmtnt?  Does 
his  authority  prove  that  the  Church  of  Scotland  does  not  maintain  Presby- 
terian government !  Ed. 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  XIX.  9$ 

Clerg-/  and  laity,  and  among  the  Clergy,  formed  equally  of  presidr 
iiig  Ministers  and  others ;  to  meet  statedly  once  in  three  years." 

Such  are  the  outlines  of  the  plan  which  the  Bishop  recommends, 
and  which  he  wished  to  see  carried  into  immediate  execution,  with- 
out waiting  for  what  is  called  the  succession,  and  without  depend- 
ing upon  any  foreign  Church  whatever.  It  will  be  ob  erved  that  he 
proposes  ordination  to  bo  performed  by  a  permanent  firesident, 
elected  by  each  of  the  smaller  districts,  in  conjunction  roith  other 
Clergymen,  to  be  also  afipointed  by  the  body.  He  afterwards  ex- 
plains the  plan,  and  satisfactorily  answers  to  every  unprejudiced 
mind,  all  the  objections  which  could  be  brought  against  it. 

The  Bishop,  in  speaking  of  their  former  connection  with  the 
Churcli  of  England,  says,  that  "  it  subjected  them  to  many  incon- 
veniences, such  as  sending  to  the  distance  of  thi-ee  thousand  miles 
for  ordination,"  Sec.  It  is  remarkable  that  he  was  subjected  him- 
self to  this  very  inconvenience.  He  and  Dr.  Prevost  went  over  to 
the  Bishop  of  London  to  bring  hither  the  succession.**  Tne  latter 
of  these  gentlemen,  Vf^ho  supplied  the  former  with  some  facts  for 
his  pampJilet,  had  never  received  any  other  baptism  than  what 
was  administered  to  him  by  a  Dutch  Presbyter.  The  Bishop  of 
London  is  known  not  to  have  refused  him  ordination  on  this  account ; 
nor  to  have  refused  to  make  Priests  of  several  in  this  country,  who 
never  were  otherwise  baptised  than  by  a  Presbyterian  Minister. 
How  is  it  that  the  ordinance  thus  administered  is  valid  in  England, 
and  invalid  in  the  United  States  ?t  Both  the  gentlemen  who  were 
consecrated  Bishops  were  convinced  that  there  was  no  necessity 
for  undertaking  so  long  and  dangerous  a  voyage ;  but  that  everj' 
purpose  could  be  answered  as  well  at  home.:j;  Bishop  Seabury  was 
more  intent  upon  the  succession,  and  early  hunted  it  up  somev/here 
in  Scotland.  Bishop  White  discovers  a  great  deal  of  piety  and 
good  sense  in  the  following  paragraphs : 

.  "  The  other  part  of  the  proposal,"  says  he,  "  was  an  immediate 
execution  of  the  plan,  v/ithout  waiting  for  the  Episcopal  succes- 
sion.||  This  is  founded  on  the  presumption  that  the  worship  of 
God,  and  the  instruction  and  reformation  of  the  people  are  the  prin- 
cipal objects  of  ecclesiastical  discipline ;  if  so,  to  relinquish  tliera 
from  a  scrupulous  adherence  to  Episcopacy  is  sacrificing  the  sub- 
stance to  the  ceremony. 

"  It  wUl  be  said,  we  ought  to  continue  as  we  are,  with  the  hope 

*  It  is  very  evident,  from  this  circumstance,  that  Bishop  White  could 
not,  as  this  author  v/ou'd  make  us  believe,  have  thought  the  Episcopal  suc- 
cession unnecessarv'.  JEd. 

t  See  the  note  at  the  close  of  Miscellanies,  No.  12.  p.  24.  Ed. 

\  This  is  paying  a  very  high  compliment  to  the  consistency  and  the 
sincerity  of  these  gentlemen.  JEd. 

II  The  author  of  the  Miscellanies  here  only  exhibits  one  part  of  the  pro- 
posal, and  keeps  baci<  the  other,  v/hicji  would  have  exhibited  the  author 
of  the  pamplilet  as  favourable  to  Episcopacy,  and  desirous  of  obtaining  the 
succession.  The  reader  will  find  this,  and  many  other  misrepresentations 
of  this  pamphlet  in  the  numbers  of  the  Miscellanies  corrected  in  the  letters 
which  appear  towards  the  conclusion  of  this  controversy  under  the  signa- 
ture of  "  An  Ejiiscopalian."  And  observations  concerning  the  pamphlet 
also  appear  in  Detector,  No.  2.  ■     Ed. 


M  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XIX. 

of  obtaiiiinK  It  hereafter.  But  are  the  acknowlctlj^ed  ordraancet 
of  Christ's  holy  religion  to  be  suspciideil  for  years,  j^rhups  as  long 
as  the  present  generation  sliall  continue,  out  of  delicacy  to  a  dis- 
puted point,  and  that  relating  only  to  externals  ?  It  is  submitted, 
Low  far  such  ideas  encourage  the  suspicion  of  want  of  attachment 
to  any  particular  Church,  except  so  far  as  it  is  subservient  to  some 
civil  system.  All  the  obligatioHs  of  conformity  to  the  divine  ordi- 
nances, all  the  arguments  which  prove  the  connection  between  pul>- 
lic  worship  and  the  morals  of  a  ]x:ople,  comljine  to  urge  the  adopt- 
ing some  bpcedy  measures  to  provide  for  the  public  ministry  in  these 
Churclics. 

*'  It  would  be  to  the  greatest  degree  surprising,  if  the  Church  of 
England,  acknowledged  by  all  Protestant  ChurcJiesto  lay  a  sufficient 
stress  on  the  essential  doctrines  and  duties  of  the  Ciospel,  should  be 
found  so  immoderately  attached  to  a  matter  of  external  order,  as 
must,  in  some  cases,  be  ruinous  to  her  comnumion.  Hut,  tar  trotn 
this,  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  prove,  that  a  temporary  dcpartum 
from  Episcopacy  in  the  present  instance  would  be  warranted  by 
iher  doctrines,  by  her  practice,  and  by  the  principles  un  whicb 
Episcopal  government  is  assei"ted." 

The  reader  will  find  nothing  here  of  divine  rights  and  uninter^ 
ru/Utd  succrssioTi.  Episcopacy  is  called  a  cerimomj  when  com- 
pared with  the  adnnnislration  of  divine  ordinances — a  disputed 
Jioint — a  matter  of  external  order:  and  the  Bishop  proves,  as  will 
be  seen  in  further  extracts,  that  a  tem/iorarij  dcfmrture  from  Efns- 
copacxj  is  warrantable,  and  often  necessary.  What  then  are  we  t» 
think  of  the  assertions  of  the  author  of  "  A  Companion  for  the  Fes- 
tivals," See.  who  was  born  a  little  before  the  Bishop  in  Pennsyl- 
vania wrote  his  pamphlet  ?  He  boldly  declares,  that  "  it  is  neccs* 
sary  that  the  Kfiiscofiul  succession,  from  the  days  of  tlie  Apostles» 
should  l)e  uninterruJUcd" — that  *■'•  its  interruption  seems  indeed 
morally  imi>ossit>le"— that  "  if  Presbytersy  or  Deacons,  or  Laymen^ 
should  «ssw/«e  the  power  of  ordination,  the  authority  of  the  persons 
ordained  by  them  would  rest  on /n(ma7i  institution,  and  therefore' 
in  tlie  Church,  where  a  dixiine  cotnmission  is  necessary  to  the  exer- 
cise of  the  Ministry,  their  acts  would  \x  nugatory  and  invalid"— 
that  "  the  continuance  of  the  commission,  and,  of  course,  the  autho- 
vity  of  the  Priesthood,  depends  upon  the  continuance  of  the  tnode  ap- 
pointed to  convey  it" — yea,  "  that  we  can  no  more  lay  aside  Ji/iiaco- 
pacy,  and  yet  conthme  the  Christian  Priesthood,  thtui  we  can  alter  the 
terms  of  salvation,  and  yet  bein  covenant  with  God."  If  this  be  true, 
then  in  vain  did  the  Bishop  propose  ordination  by  Presbyters,  ii) 
vain  think  of  "  a  temporary  departure  from  Episcopacy,"  and  worse 
than  in  vain  did  he  attempt  to  prove  his  proposition.  We  shall  see 
in  the  next  number  what  he  has  to  say  for  liimsclf. 


[Remarks,  by  the  Editor,  on  the  preceding  N'umber.'] 

The  remarks  cjuoted  in  the  above  number  from  the  Companion  for 
the  Festivals  and  Fasts  may  be  true  in  ffcneral,  and  yet  admit  of  aa 
exception  in  a  case  of  nccorssity,  in  which  alone  Bishop  White  tlioughv 


REMARKS  ON  MISCELLANIES^;.     No.  XIX.  ST 

"  of  a  temporary  departure  from  F-pisf/jpacy."  I^t  any  person, 
throwing  asuJc  all  prejudice  and  pre-cr)nccivf;(l  opinionii,  p<;nj'ie  the 
reasfjning;  an  iheccniMitutionof  th<e  Churdi  in  tlie  O)mpdnion  forth© 
Fcrtivalb-  and  Ka-.ti*,  and  tlie  author  of  that  work  will  not  fc-ar  ihe  re- 
sult. He  can  indeed  claim  no  merit  for  thih  rrrasoninj^.  It  has  been 
repeatedly  urg-'^l  by  those  ^reat  masters  in  theoioj^y,  who  imbibed 
tlitir  opinions  ajfictminf;  the  Christian  Priesthood  not  in  the  school 
•f  Geneva,  but  in  the  v.h<X)\  of  the  aixifctolic  and  primitive  Cliurch. 
At  the  feet  of  these  Masters  in  Lsrael  even  the  author  of  MLacel- 
lanics  need  not  be  axhaiiied  to  sit  and  learn. 

It  is  in  the  power  of  the  K.ditor  however,  to  bring  forward  rea- 
•oning  on  this  subject,  which  will  prr.biibly  have  more  weif^ht  than 
any  that  could  1)C  arlduced  from  writers  who  are  viewed  v/iih  tlKisc 
prejudices  that  are  too  often  excited  against  Churchmen. 

Ijct  the  author  oi  Miscellanies,  and  those  who  are  influenced  by 
his  atatcmenth,candi<lly  peruse  the  following  extracts  from  two  Dis- 
ojurses  pulilished  by  Dr.  Latubop,  of  West-Spring(i':ir|,  Massa- 
chusetts, an  eminent  Con;;;regational  Divine.  The  DifiCoursesare 
entitled,  "  Christ's  Waniiri^;  to  the  Churches  to  lx;ware  of  false 
Prophets,"  ice.  and  apjjear  t/j  be  desij^ned  to  guard  the  people  of 
his  Churclves  from  the  inroads  of  wjctarian  preachers.  In  the  ex- 
ecution of  this  design  he  uses  many  of  the  illustrations,  and  advo- 
cates many  of  those  tenets, against  wltich  the  author  of  Misceilaniei 
directs  his  keenest  satire  and  invective. 

In  f>ppo»!ng  the  claims  of  uiiauthorised  preachers  of  the  gospel, 
b«  brings  forward  the  rune  of  Corah  and  his  com/iany,  which  waH 
quoted  with  reprobati'"ni  from  tlK;  Companion  for  the  Festivals,  &c. 
by  the  autJKjr  of  Miscellanies.  Ihc  following  arc  the  words  of 
l)r.  Lath  ROT"  at  page  112  of  his  pamplet.*  "  The  Ap^jttle 
Jude  illustrates  their  character  by  comparing  them  to  the  an- 
cient Corah/ tc*.  Vhrij  have  /tirrithed  in  the  c^ainxayinff  of  C<y 
rah.  The  story  aihided  to  is  in  the  IGth  chap,  of  Numi)cr9« 
Corah  and  his  crnnpanions  took  upon  them  to  offer  infx-nsc, 
«nd  exercise  the  functions  of  the  PrieLthfK)d.  'ITiey  murmured 
against  the  family  of  Aarf>n,  whicS*  had  been  consecrated  to  this  holy 
•ervice.  They  said,  '  Ye  take  tf^>  much  uptjn  you,  secin;;  all  the 
congregatifm  arc  holy,  and  the  Lord  is  among  them:  Wherefore 
lift  ye  u{)  y(iu.rs*;lvcs  above  the  congregation  ^  They  called  'the 
standing  order'  of  Ministers  a  tyra»)ny,  a  usurpation  of  rigJits  com- 
mon to  all  tlie  ly^rd's  peoi>le.  They  ]>retcnded  that  every  man  who 
pleased  might  oRicia'c  in  the  Priesthood.  Moses  says,  '  God  hath 
brought  you  ncrar  to  him,  to  do  the  service  of  the  tal;ernriclc,  and 
do  you  seek  the  Priesthood  also?  Ye  take  too  nuich  upon  you,  ye 
»oiis  frf  lAvi.'  How  their  presumption  issued,  you  well  reni<;.nl)er. 
Now  the  Apo«tlc  says,  these  false  teacherf.,  who  crept  into  the 
Church  unawares,  were  guilty  of  tlw;  gainsaying  of  Corah.  They 
had  assumed  the  sacred  cflice  like  him,  vncaUcd  an<l  unautho' 
riked ;  were  guilty  of  his  presumption,  and  exposed  to  his  condem- 
iKition." 

Dr.  Lathrop  founds  all  his  reasouinci  on  the  principle  which  the 

•  The  Discourses  of  Dr.  Lathrop  here  q-jotcci,  were  prliitt-J  at  Noitk- 
amptoii. 


&S  I^EMARKS  ON  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XIX. 

author  of  Miscellanies  ridicules  and  disclaims,  of  regular  uniri'- 
terrupted  succession.  Dr.  Lathrop  indeed  maintains  that  this  suc- 
cession is  in  the  order  of  Elders.  But  all  the  objections  which  the 
author  of  Miscellanies  urges  against  the  doctrine  of  successio7i  in 
the  superior  order  of  liishofis,  will  apply  with  much  greater  force 
to  the  doctrine  oi  succession  in  the  inferior  and  much  more  numer- 
ous order  of  Elders.  And  the  arguments  of  Dr.  Lathrop  on  the 
sulyect  may  therefore  with  propriety  be  urged  against  him. 

Let  the  following  extract  from  Dr.  Lathrop's  afi/iendix  to  his 
Discourses,  p.  159,  be  attentively  perused. 

"  But  ail  objection  will  perhaps  meet  us  from  sufifiosed  necessity^ 
or  historical  fact. 

"  Many  centuries,"  it  will  be  said,  "  have  elapsed,  since  Christ 
commissioned  his  Apostles,  and  since  they  ordained  their  succes- 
sors :  and  how  can  we  know,  that  the  succession  has  been  con- 
tinued without  interruption  I  And  if  there  has  been  an  interruption, 
then  there  was  a  time  when  ordination  was  taken  up  anew  by  pri- 
vate  Christians.  What  then  are  all  present  ordinations,  traced  to 
their  origin,  but  lay-ordinations?" 

"  This  objection  may  deserve  an  answer. 

"  The  great  question  here  must  be.  What  is  the  institution  of 
Christ  and  the  apostolic  usage  ?  By  these  we  must  be  governed, 
and  these  must  not  be  set  aside  by  imaginary  necessity,  or  supposi- 
titious facts. 

"  The  gospel  history  confirms  the  position  which  we  have  laid 
down.  A  ministry  in  the  Church  is  undeniably  instituted  by  Christ — 
introduction  to  the  ministry  in  the  apostolic  age  was  by  prayer  and 
the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  Elders — this  usage  was  invai'iably, 
and  without  a  single  deviation,  continued  as  long  as  the  sacred  his- 
tory affords  any  Irght— the  directions  concerning  ordinations  are 
given  to  Bishops  or  Elders.,  and  to  them  only — no  provision  is 
made  for  cases  of  necessity,  or  for  the  renewal  of  the  mitiistry,  if 
it  should  happen  to  cease.  We  have  an  express  promise  from 
Christ,  that  he  will  support  his  Church,  and  be  with  his  Ministers 
always  even  to  the  end  of  the  world.  When  we  compare  this  pro- 
mise with  the  institution  of  the  ministry,  and  the  mode  of  intro- 
duction which  immediately  followed,  we  think  it  can  import  no 
less,  than  that  a  regular  ministry  should  never  cease  in  the  Church, 
nor  any  ?iecessi(y  occur  for  departing  from  the  instituted  manner  of 
introduction.  We  have  Xho.  institution,  the  pro??iise  and  the  apos- 
tolic practice  in  our  favour ;  and  what  more  do  we  need  ?  The 
promise,  so  emphatically  expressed,  and  so  clearly  interpi'eted  by 
subsequent  usage,  must,  we  think,  be  understood  as  we  have  stated  it. 

"  It  is  then  by  no  means  necessary,  that  by  historical  deduction, 
we  should  prove  an  u?ii?iterrupted  stcccessioti ;  we  have  a  right  to 
presianr  it,  until  evidence  appears  to  the  co7itrary.  If  any  say  the 
succession  has  failed,  the  burthen  oj  proof  must  lie  wholly  on  them. 
Let  them,^  from  incontestible  history,  show  us  the  time,  place,  and 
manner  in  which  it  terminated — who  were  the  last  Mimsters  in  the 
line  from  the  Apostles — who  the  first  in  the  new  line — who  the  Lay- 
men that  ordained  them — -and  where  was  the  scene  of  the  transac- 
tion. Uritil  we  have  this  information,  we  rely  on  the  promise  of 
Christ,  iii  the  sense  in  Vr'hicU  we  understand  it." 


REMARKS  ON  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XIX.  97 

It  is  to  be  presumed,  the  Miscellaneous  author,  on  reading  the 
above,  will  exclaim,  *'  No  Episcopalian  could  reason  more  to  the 
purposa."  Dr.  Lathrop,  in  the  above  passage,  rests  the  succession, 
as  the  Episcopalians  do,  on  the  institution  of  Christ,  and  a/wstolic 
naaffe — on  the  /iromise  of  Christ  to  his  Apostles,  to  be  with  them 
nlivcya  even  to  the  end  of  the  tvorlcl.  He  even  seems  more  unwil- 
ling than  many  Episcopalians  are,  to  admit  cases  of  necessity  as  an 
excuse  for  a  departure  from  the  succession.  He  denies  that  it  is 
incumbent  on  those  who  possess  the  succession,  to  prove  tha.t  it  has 
hetn  uninterritfited.  The  burthen  of  proof,  he  justly  says,  lies  on 
'those  who  deny  the  succession. 

Dr.  Lathrop  also  answers  an  objection  often  urged  against  the 
succession  by  the  opponents  of  Episcopacy. 

"  But  it  will  be  asked,  '  What  if  a  number  of  Christians  should 
be  cast  on  a  desolate  coast  or  island,  or  should  emigrate  to  a  coun- 
try secluded  from  intercourse  with  the  Christian  world,  and  should 
have  among  them  no  ordained  Minister?'  iVIay  they  not  ordain 
Ministers  for  themselves  ?  May  not  Ministers  thus  ordained  ven- 
ture to  officiate? 

"  But  tell  me  first,  where  is  this  solitary  island  or  coast — this 
secluded  country  of  Christians  ?  Did  you  ever  i*ead  of  a  colony  of 
pious  Christians  emigrating  to  a  new  country,  who  forgot  to  take 
Ministers  with  them;  or  whom  no  Ministers  would  rxcompany  or 
follow  ?  If  no  such  case  has  ever  happened,  or  is  ever  likely  to 
happen,  it  is  not  strange,  that  the  Head  of  the  Church  has  made 
no  provision  for  it ;  nor  is  it  necessary  that  we  should  undertake  to 
remedy  his  omission."    P.  161. 

Dr.  Lathrop  goes  on  to  refute  the  stale  objection  that  the  succes- 
sion is  bioken  because  it  passed  through  the  corrupt  Church  of 
Rome.  It  is  unnecessary,  however,  any  further  to  quote  hi»  obser- 
vations. They  all  tend  to  prove  that  an  internal  call  to  the  minis- 
try is  not  valid  without  a  regular  external  commission  from  the 
Head  of  the  Church. 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  Dr.  Lathrop  is  not  a  High  Church 
Divine ;  not  surely  one  of  those  "  fanatics"  against  wltom  the  au- 
thor of  Miscellanies  so  often  lifts  his  indignant  arm ;  but  a  Con- 
gregational or  Presbyterian  Minister;  standing  high,,  in  the  State 
in  which  he  resides,  for  talents,  learning,  and  piety. 

The  reasonings  of  Dr.  Lathrop  are  introduced,  principally,  to 
prove  that  Presbyterian  Ministers  can  in  no  other  way  defend  them- 
selves from  the  encroachments  of  self-constituted  teachers,  than  by 
the  doctrine  of  tlie  necessity  of  an  external  commission,  derived 
by  regular  uninterrupted  succession  from  the  divine  Head 
of  the  Church,  to  the  exercise  of  a  valid  niinisti-y,i  And  yet 
when  they  have  recourse  to  this  principle,  they  are  confronted  by 
the  resistless  testimony  of  scripture  and  ecclesiastical  history,  that 
this  succession  wliich  commenced  in  the  Apostles  was  continued  in 
an  order  of  Ministers  superior  to  Elders,  or  Presbyters. 

The  DOCTRINE  OF  succession  must  be  the  rallying  point  of  all 
the  advocates  of  a  regular  ministry.  It  is  their  sole  defence  against 
that  levelling  spirit,  which,  with  the  arm  of  a  giant,  would  pros- 
trate the  Christian  I'lictthooJ,  Ed. 

O 


(    98     ) 

For  the  Albany  Centinel. 
THE  LAYMAN.    No.  VII. 

AN  pursuing  the  Miscellaneous  writer,  I  liave  considered  tKe  ar-* 
guments  by  which  the  advocates  of  parity  defend  their  system,  and 
the  objections  whicli  they  urge  against  the  Episcopal  Church.  The 
ground  on  which  Presbyterial  ordination  rests  has  been  surveyed 
in  all  its  parts.  For,  although  the  writer  in  question  cannot  b» 
considered  as  arranging,  in  the  most  compact  manner,  the  argu- 
ments generally  relied  upon  in  support  of  his  system,  oi>  as  present- 
ing them  in  the  way  best  calculated  to  make  an  impression  upon  the 
mind ;  yet,  to  do  him  justice,  he  has  touched,  in  the  course  of  his 
numbers,  on  tte  different  modes  of  reasoning,  and  declarations  of 
scripture  upon  which  the  most  learned  advocates  of  parity  havQ 
been  in  the  habit  of  placing  their  cause. 

He  threatens  us,  too,  with  convincing  evidence  from  the  history" 
of  the  Church.  This,  however,  can  be  nothing  moiT  than  a  threat* 
That  man  must  indeed  be  bold  who,  after  having  diligently  exa- 
mined ecclesiastical  annals,  will  venture  to  tell  us  that  they  yield  even 
a  semblance  of  support  to  the  system  of  government  which  Calvin, 
against  his  own  better  judgn>ent,  introduced  into  the  Church.  No  ; 
if  there  be  an  historical  fact  more  clearly  attested  than  any  other, 
it  is  that  of  the  existence  of  distinct  orders  in  the  Christian  Minis- 
try, without  a  single  exception,  in  any  part  of  the  world,  from  the 
Apostolic  age,  until  the  establishment  of  the  system  of  parity,  at 
Geneva,  in  the  sixteenth  century.  And  at  that  period  the  great 
founder  of  the  principle  justified  him'self  upon'  the  plea  of  necessity 
alone.  It  never  entex'ed  into  his  head  to  set  up  Presbyterial  gov-» 
ernment  as  "  the  o?ily  one  /irescribed  in  the  word  of  God."  He 
considered  it  as  a  system  that  nothing  but  the  urgency  of  circum- 
stances could  render  admissible,  denouncing,  with  characteristic 
violence,  all  those  who,  having  the  Episcopal  hierarchy  in  their 
power,  should  refuse  to  yield  to  it  the  most  scrupulous  obedience. 

Such,  also,  was  the  language  of  many  other  illustrious  reformers ; 
and  it  was  in  the  same  way  that  the  Hugonots  of  France,  and  the 
reformed  Churches  in  Holland,  and  other  parts  of  the  world,  de- 
fended their  conduct.  I  have  mentioned  this  before ;  but  it  deserves 
to  be  repeated,  and  repeated ;  for  it  is  of  a  nature  to  carry  convic- 
tion to  every  ingenuous  mind,  and  ought  to  cover  with  confusion 
those  bold  critics  who  venture  to  tell  us  that  Presbyterial  govern- 
ment is  the  true  one  prescribed  in  the  sacred  volume.  No  ;  it  is  a 
modern  invention.  There  is  no  trace  of  it,  eitlier  in  scripture  or 
antiquity;  and  the  first  individual  who  undertook  to  broach  the  sys- 
tem was  branded  as  a  madman  by  the  writers  of  the  age.  This 
individual  was  Aerius,  of  the  fourth  century,  a  man  of  unprincipled 
ambition.  Disappointed  in  his  project  of  becoming  a  Bishop,  he 
laboured  to  excite  commotion  in  the  Church,  advancing  the  novel 
principle  of  parity  among  the  Ministers  of  the  word,  which  drew 
upon  him  the  severest  reprehension  from  the  great  and  pious  men 
who  flourished  at  that  period.  If  Presbyterial  government  be  of 
divine  institution,  can  it  be  possible  that  all  trace  of  it  would  have 


LAYMAN,    No.  VII.  9^ 

been  so  far  lost,  wUhin  two  hundred  years  of  the  Apostolic  age,  as 
to  subject  one  who  pleaded  in  favour  of  it  to  the  universal  charge 
of  insanity  ?  When  it  is  recollected  too,  that  the  different  Churches 
had  their  records,  and  could  trace  up  their  officers,  in  regular 
succession,  to  the  Apostles  themselves  ?  No  ;  it  is  impossible.  A 
wilder  idea  never  took  possession  of  the  human  imagination.  But 
I  forbear  to  enter  upon  this  part  of  the  subject  at  present,  reserv- 
ing what  I  may  have  to  say  on  it  for  a  future  address. 

It  may  be  well,  before  proceeding  to  state  the  evidence  on  which 
Episcopacy  rests,  to  take  a  rapid  review  of  the  numbers  of  the 
Miscellaneous  writer,  presenting,  in  as  short  a  space  as  possible,  the 
whole  strength  of  the  Presbyterian  cause,  that  the  public  may  be  ena- 
bled to  perceive,  at  once,  what  degree  of  support  it  may  be  justly  con- 
sidered as  deriving,  from  the  plain  declarations,  or  from  the  fair 
construction  of  scripture. 

Upon  what,  then,  does  this  gentleman  ground  the  defence  of  his 
system  ?  He  grounds  it  on  the  address  of  our  Savioqr  to  his  Apos- 
tles, recorded  in  the  twentieth  chapter  of  Matthew,  He  grounds 
it  on  the  promiscuous  use  of  names.  He  grounds  it  on  the  manner 
of  ordination  of  Paul,  Barnabas,  and  Timothy. 

Let  us  see  how  far  these  things  siipport  his  position. 

And  it  is  proper,  here,  to  remark,  that  the  burthen  of  proof  lies  en- 
tirely on  the  advocates  of  parity.  Calvin  found  the  whole  Christian 
workl  in  possession  of  the  Episcopal  form  of  government.  The  most 
learned  supporters  of  the  opposite  doctrine  scruple  not  to  admit 
that  Bishops  existed,  universally,  in  the  Church,  as  distinct  from, 
and  superior  to  Presbyters,  within  forty  or  fifty  years  after  th«  last 
of  the  Apost'e«.  Such  is  the  concession  of  Blondel^  of  Salmasius^ 
of  BocliartHs.,  of  Baxter^  of  Doddridge,  Some  of  them,  indeed, 
carry  it  up  to  a  much  earlier  period  ;  Salmasius  going  so  far  as  to 
admit  that  Episcopacy  prevailed  shortly  after  the  martyrdom  of 
Paul  and  Peter,  and  long  before  the  death  of  St,  John. 

It  is  surely  incumbent  on  those  who  advocate  a  form  of  govern- 
ment admitted  to  be  thus  nevj,  and  thus  opposed  to  the  early^  uni- 
versal, and  uyilnterru/ited  practice  of  the  Church,  to  give  us  the 
most  convincing  and  unequivocal  proof  of  the  divinity  of  their  sys- 
tem. More  especially  when  it  is  recollected  that  they  can  produce 
no  record  of  a  change  ;  but  are  obliged  to  imagine  one",  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  uniform  testimony  of  the  primitive  Fathers  of  the  Church. 
The  age  in  which  they  suppose  a  change  to  have  taken  place  was  a 
learned  age,  abounding  in  authors  of  the  first  eminence.  The  most 
minute  events  are  recorded,  and  yet  not  a  word  is  said  of  the  revo- 
lution, which  some  men  talk  of,  so  fundamental  in  its  nature,  and 
so  interesting  in  its  consequences.  The  change,  too,  which  they 
imagine,  must  have  been  both  instantaneous  and  universal ;  and 
this  at  a  time  when  there  were  no  Christian  princes  to  promote  it; 
when  no  general  council  had  met,  or  could  meet  to  establish  it ;  and 
when  the  fury  of  persecution  cut  off  all  intercourse  between  dis- 
tant Churches;  leaving  their  Clergy,  also,  something  else  to  attend 
to  than  projects  of  usurpation.  Such  are  the  strange  and  almost 
incredible  absurdities  into  which  men  will  run,  rather  than  give  up 
a  system  to  which  they  have  become  wedded  by  education  and  by 
Ijabit, 


100  LAYMAN.    No.  VII. 

I  say,  then,  the  burthen  of  proof  lies  upon  our  opponents.  Let 
them  show  that  Presbyterial  government  is  the  true  and  only  one 
which  Christ  hath  prescribed  in  his  word.  It  is  not  sufficient  to 
cite  passages,  or  to  state  facts,  from  scripture,  which  simply  favour 
their  idea.  Where  probability  is  opposed  to  probability,  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Church  universal,  for  so  long  a  period  of  time,  ought  in 
all  reason  to  decide.  Should  it  even  be  admitted,  contrary  to  every 
sound  rule  of  construction,  that  the  scriptures  determine,  neither 
in  favour  of  Episcopacy  nor  parity,  the  Presbyterian  cause  must 
inevitably  perish ;  for,  under  this  idea,  that  firm  and  universal 
possession  of  the  ground  which  Churchmen  maintained,  from  the 
time  of  St.  John  to  the  sixteenth  century,  must  be  admitted  to  de- 
cide the  dispute.  I  trust,  however,  I  shall  be  able  to  show  that  the 
evidence  of  Episcopacy,  from  scripture,  is  irresistible ;  and  that 
there  are  not  circumstances  strong  enough  to  furnish  even  a  remote 
probability  in  favour  of  that  doctrine  of  parity,  flattering,  indeed,  to 
the  pride  of  man,  on  vrhich  a  small  portion  of  modex-n  Christians 
insist  with  so  much  pertinacity. 

The  Miscellaneous  writei*,  following  the  example  of  those  who 
have  laboured,  before  him,  in  the  same  cause,  produces  the  ad- 
dress of  our  Saviour  to  his  Apostles,  called  forth  by  the  application 
in  favour  of  James  and  John,  that  they  should  sit,  the  one  on  the 
I'ight  hand,  the  other  oh  the  left,  in  his  kingdom.  This  address 
has  been  I'elied  upon,  as  excluding  the  idea  of  subordination  among 
the  governors  of  the  Church.  Surely  the  advocates  of  parity,  in  thus 
acting,  have  been  very  much  off  their  guard,  or  have  been  driven 
to  extremities  for  argument.  I  trust  I  have  completely  shown  that 
the  application,  in  favour  of  James  and  John,  related  to  temporal 
eminence,  and  that  our  Saviour,  in  his  address,  only  inculcated  upon 
his  disciples  the  principle  of  Christian  condescension  and  hu- 
mility. "  Whosoever  will  be  chief  among  you,  let  him  be  your 
aervant ;  even  as  the  Son  of  man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto^ 
but  to  miniater."  The  plain  desig-n  of  all  which  is  to  recommend 
to  superiors  a  mild  and  condescending  deportment,  and  to  preserve 
themselves  humble  amid  the  exercise  of  authority.  Take  the  in- 
terpretation for  which  our  opponents  contend,  and  Jesus  Christ  him- 
self is  effectually  deprived  of  all  spiritual  power.  Nay,  this  inter- 
pretation not  only  destroys  subordination  as  between  Clergy  and 
Clergy;  but,  also,  as  between  Clergy  and  Laity.  It  annihilates 
the  whole  order  of  the  Priesthood,  as  ;.onsisting  of  "  Lords  in  God's 
heritage"  to  whom  free  men  ought  to  1^  too  proud  to  submit.  A 
mode  of  reasoning  that  might  have  been  expected  from  the  illumi- 
nated philosophists  of  the  age;  but,  surely,  could  not  have  been 
looked  for  from  a  venerable  Divine.  I  forbear  to  say  any  thing 
more  on  the  point,  as  it  was  fully  considered  in  the  last  address, 
and  my  design  now  is,  simply  to  take  a  brief  review  of  all  that  the 
Miscellaneous  writer  has  advanced. 

In  the  second  place,  reliance  is  put  upon  the  promiscuous  use  of 
names.  This  sort  of  argument  lias,  I  trust,  been  sufficiently  ex- 
posed. Men  may  quarrel  for  ever  about  terms.  The  true  in- 
quiry is  not  concerning  ivords,  but  lliingt.  Ejiiskojios^  Presbute- 
ijos,  Diakonos^  are  all  appellative.  Each  of  them  is  capable  of  be- 
tig  applied,  and  is  actually  appUed  to  all  the  orders  of  the  Priest- 


LAYMAN.    No.  VII. 


iOl 


hood.  DiaHonos  is  applied  to  Christy  to  the  A/xostlcs,  to  the  seven 
Deacons  of  Jerusalem.  And  vei-y  pi'operly,  for  they  were  all  Mi- 
nisters. The  same  observation  may  be  made  of  Efilskofios .  It  is 
applied  to  our  Saviour^  to  his  A/iostles^  to  the  Elders  oi  £/i/iesus. 
They  were  all  overseers,  Presbuteros  is  a  name  indiscriminately 
given  to  the  Apostles,  and  those  whom  they  governed.  Very  justly 
too ;  for  Presduteros  signifies  a  ruler,  and  there  mav  be  rulers  of 
an  inferior  as  well  as  of  a  superior  order.  To  say  that  Efiiskofws 
and  Presbuteros  are  sometimes  used,  the  one  for  the  other,  is  no- 
thing to  the  purpose.  Tlie  point  is  to  prove  that  each  of  them  is 
used  in  an  invariable  sense  ;  Efiiskofios  always  denoting,  in  one 
part  of  scripture,  precisely  the  same  office  that  it  denotes  in  every 
other  part  of  scripture,  and  Presbuteros  always  implying,  in  one 
passage,  the  very  same  powers  which  it  implies  in  every  other  pas- 
sage. And  when  it  can  be  proved  that  Efiisko/ios,  as  applied  to 
Christ.^  as  appUed  to  his  AjiostleSy  as  applied  to  the  Elders  of 
Efihesus,  denotes  precisely  and  exactly  the  same  officer,  I  will 
give  up  this  controvers)'.  The  question  is,  as  to  the  orders  of  Mi- 
nisters that  were  established  in  the  Church,  and  this  question  is  to 
be  determined,  not  by  the  names  used,  but  by  the  fioivcrs  exercised. 
In  the  tliird  place,  as  to  the  manner  of  ordination  of  Paul,  Bar- 
nabas, and  Timothy.  This  has  been  pretty  fully  considered.  Paul 
and  Barnabas  were  not  ordained  at  all  by  the  prophets  and  teachers 
of  Antioch.  It  was  a  meie  benediction  which  they  received 
upon  departing,  according  to  the  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  on  a 
temporary  mission.  That  mission  they  are  represented,  in  the 
succeeding  chapter  of  the  Acts,  as  havingfulfilled,  and  as  returning 
to  Antioch,  "  frora  ivhcnce  they  had  been  recommended  to  the 
^race  ofGodJor  the  work"  to  give  an  account  of  such  fulfilment. 
This  completely  proves  that  it  was  not  to  the  aliostolic  office  they 
■were  set  apart,  and  that  the  laying  on  of  hands  was  merely  a  so- 
lemn invocation  of  the  Divine  blessing  on  their  labours.  Such  is  the 
idea  even  of  Dr.  Doddridge,  a  very  conspicuous  dissenter  from  the 
Church  of  England. 

The  ordination  of  Timothy  was  certainly  Episcopal.  At  all 
events,  there  is  no  proof  that  it  was  after  the  Presbyterial  mode. 
The  two  passages  in  tlie  Epistles  of  Paul  are  to  be  taken  toge- 
ther. Most  commentators  consider  the  text,  in  the  second  Epistle, 
lis  referring  to  ordination,  as  well  as  to  the  supernatural  gifts  of  the 
Spirit.  Of  the  six  writers  whom  I  have  consulted,  four  are  decid- 
edly of  this  opinion.  If  the  two  passages  are  taken  together,  the 
natural  construction  is  that  Timothy  was  oi'dained  by  the  laying  on 
of  the  hands  of  Paid,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  Presbyters ; 
the  former  conveying  power,  the  latter  expressing  concurrence  in 
the  selection  of  character.  But  let  us  lay  aside  the  passage  in  the 
second  Epistle.  "  Neglect  not  the  gift  tliat  is  in  thee,  which  was 
given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  iiands  of  the  Pres- 
bytery." Take  this  text  alone.  Does  it  give  any  support  to  the 
system  of  parity  ?  I  am  persuaded  that  it  does  not.  Some  commen- 
tators, among  whom  are  Jei'ome  and  Calvin,  consider  P/rsAw/mou, 
the  Greek  term  which  is  here  rendered  Presbytery,  as  referring  to 
the  gift  bestowed  on  Timothy,  not  to  the  maimer  of  his  ordination. 
<•  Neglect  not  the  gift  of  Presbytery,  that  is,  the  office  of  Priesthood, 


\ 


S02  LAYMAN.    No.  VII. 

which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  hands." 
This  interpretation  of  Calvin  destroys  all  support  which  the  pas- 
sage has  been  supposed,  by  some  gentlemen,  to  yield  to  Presbyterial 
ordination.  But  let  us  pass  by  this  construction,  and  give  the  advo- 
cates of  parity  an  opportunity  of  viewing  the  passage  in  every  point 
of  light  in  which  it  can  possibly  be  considered. 

The  only  circumstance  tliat  enables  them  to  make  the  passage 
give  even  a  t^our  of  support  to  their  mode  of  ordination,  is  the  use 
oi  the  term  P7'esbuteriou:  and  here  they  have  recourse  to  the  old 
mode  of  arguing  from  names,  a  mode  of  arguing  which  is,  literally, 
good  for  nothing.  Prcsbutei-os.,  as  we  have  already  observed,  is  an 
appellative  term,  and  is  applied  to  the  Apostles  as  well  as  to  the 
inferior  Clergy.  And,  in  respect  to  the  particular  word  here  used, 
Fresbutgriou,  it  is  more  applicable  to  the  Apostles  than  to  any 
subordinate  order.  It  occurs  in  Luke,  twenty-second  chapter,  six- 
ty-sixth verse  ;  and  in  the  Acts,  twenty-second  chapter,  fifth  verse  ; 
denoting  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim,  or  Great  Council.  In  the  Latin 
translation  it  is  rendered  seJiatus,  which  exactly  answers  to  the 
Greek  term.  Upon  what  possible  principle,  then,  can  it  be  con- 
sidered as  particularly  applicable  to  such  an  association,  as  an  as- 
sembly of  modern  Presbyters  ?  Surely,  if  we  are  to  judge  from  the 
tribunal  to  which  it  is  annexed,  in  the  passages  that  have  been 
cited,  there  is  the  strongest  reason  for  supposing  that  it  denotes, 
in  the  text  under  consideration,  the  Apostles  themselves.  The 
conclusion  from  the  words,  even,  is  directly  against  the  doctrine  of 
parity ;  and  the  gentleman  can  get  over  this  only  by  dwelling  on  the 
modern  use  of  the  term  Presbytery,  keeping  out  of  the  view  of  his 
people,  as  much  as  possible,  the  important  circumstance  that  the 
Greek  term  is  applied  to  the  Great  Council  at  Jerusalem,  and  is 
rendered  into  Latin  by  a  word  which  designates  the  cfticf  officers 
of  the  Roman  Commonwealth.  But  the  true  meaning  of  the  Greek 
word  Presbitteriou^  is  put  out  of  all  doubt  by  referring  to  ec- 
clesiastical history,  which  informs  us  that  the  practice  of  Presby- 
ters, uniting  with  Bishops  in  the  imposition  of  hands,  has  never 
prevailed  in  the  Greek  Church,  and  was  not  introduced  into  the 
V/estern,  until  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  century.  In  the  fourth 
council  of  Carthage  it  was  decreed,  that  "  in  the  ordiJiatisji  of 
JPre&di/ters,  all  the  Prefibyters  firescnt  should  lay  on  their  hands ^ 
near  the  Bishofi's  hand ;"  the  design  being  to  give  to  the  ordination 
of  Presbyters  all  possible  solemnity,  and  to  increase  the  security 
against  an  improper  selection  of  characters  for  the  sacred  office. 
The  validity  of  orders,  liowever,  was  not  considered  to  depend  on 
the  Presbyters  imposing  their  hands.  And  by  the  veiy  same  coun- 
cil it  was  provided  that  the  Bishops  alone  should  impose  hands  in 
the  ordination  of  Deacons.  All  this  proves,  completely,  that  the 
primitive  Church,  universally,  considered  the  term  Presbuteriouy 
in  the  first  Epistle  to  Timothy,  as  referring  to  the  Apostles,  or 
members  of  their  order. 

Our  author  says  that  Paul,  and  those  who  acted  with  him,  in  the 
ordination  of  Timothy,  laid  on  their  hands,  as  Presbyters,  in  the 
modern  sense  of  the  word.  And  why  so  ?  Because,  to  be  sure,  the 
term  Presbutcriou  is  used.  The  gentleman  had  better  tell  us  at 
once,  tl>at  they  laid  on  their  hands  as  iricnubci's  of  the  Jewish  San- 


DETECTOR.    No.  II.  loi 

hedrim,  or  as  Roman  Senators ;  for,  thus  is  the  Greek  term  ap- 
plied. It  is  a  noble  way  of  I'easoning  this,  for  there  is  nothing  oa 
earth  that  you  may  not  prove  by  it. 

It  is  rendered  certain,  then,  as  far  as  moral  evidence  can  render 
any  thing  certain,  that  the  ordination  of  Timothy  was  completely 
Episcopal.  Let  it  now  be  observed,  that  none  of  the  other  cases  of 
ordination,  recorded  in  the  scriptures,  can  be  made,  even  by  inge- 
nious construction,  so  much  as  to  look  towards  the  Presbyterial  mode. 
The  Apostles  alone  ordained  the  seven  Deacons  of  Jerusalem. 
Paul  alone  ordained  Titus.  Paul  and  Barnabas  alone  ordained  El- 
ders in  the  different  cities  which  they  visited.  Ignatlwi,  as  Chrij- 
tostom  tells  us,  was  ordained  by  the  Apostle  Peter  ;  and  Ireneus  in- 
forms us  that  IJnus  was  constituted  the  first  Bishop  of  Rome  by 
St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul.     But  why  need  I  cite  particular  examples? 

Not  a  single  case  can  be  produced  from  ecclesiastical  history,  of 
Presbyters  being  united  with  Bishops  in  imposition  of  hands,  or  of 
their  having  any  sort  of  concern  with  the  business  of  ordination, 
luitil  the  time  of  the  fourth  council  of  Carthage. 

Again.  In  whom  do  the  scriptures  represent  the  general  power 
of  ordination  as  vested  ?  In  single  persons.  Timothy  possessed  it 
at  Ephesus ;  Titus  in  Crete.  Not  a  word  is  said  of  an  union  of 
Presbyters  with  them  in  the  business. 

I  have  now  gone  through  the  reasoning  of  the  Miscellaneous  wri- 
ter. I  trust  I  have  shown  it  to  be  entirely  insufficient  to  establish 
the  doctrine  for  which  he  contends.  How  striking  the  resemblance 
as  to  mode  of  proof,  between  the  advocates  of  papal  supremacy 
and  of  Presbyterian  parity  !  The  champions  of  the  Romish  Church 
build  the  superiority  of  the  Pope  upon  one  or  two  texts,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  general  evidence  of  scripture,  and  to  the  miiform  testi- 
mony of  ecclesiastical  history.  So  act  the  advocates  of  the  Presby- 
terian cause.  The  address,  in  favour  of  Zebedee's  children,  with 
the  ordination  of  Timothy,  and  the  pretended  ordination  of  Bar- 
nabas and  Paul,  connected  with  the  promiscuous  use  of  names,  form 
the  basis  on  which  rests  the  system  of  parity.  Sui-ely  it  is  too  weak 
a  basis  to  support  my  system,  much  less  one  that  ecclesiastical 
history  tells  us  never  existed  till  the  days  of  Calvin,  and  which  the 
Scripture,  in  the  account  of  every  Church  that  it  particularly 
notices,  most  completely  disowns. 

A  Layman  of  the  Efiiacofial  Church. 


For  the  Albany  Centinel, 

DETECTOR.    No.  II. 

V/LEMENS,  and  his  friend,  who,  from  the  decisive  ground  which 
he  takes  against  Episcopacv,  exhil)its  very  curious  pretensions  to 
the  character  of  an  "  Umpire"  in  this  controversy,  charge  ''  Cy- 
prian" with  dealing  only  in  unsupported  assertions.  The  most  su- 
perficial readers  of  his  numbers  will  perceive  that  he  enters  into  a 
minute  and  laborious  investigation  of  the  subject  of  Church  govern- 
nicnt,  and  supports,  by  cogent  argument,  whatsoever  he  advances  ; 


20-4  DETECTOR.    No.  II. 

■while  the  "  Miscellaneous  author,"  '•  Clemens,"  and  his  fr'.end 
Mr.  "  Umpire,"*  seldom  mal:e  even  an  attempt  at  argument,  but 
endeavour,  to  awaken  the  prejudices  and  blind  the  understandings 
of  their  readers,  by  low  invective  and  ridicule,  or  by  bold  assertion. 
To  detect  their  numerous  errors  and  misrepresentations,  though  aiv 
easy,  is  not  a  pleasant  business.  The  drudgery,  however,  must  be 
submitted  to. 

These  gentlemen  boldly  assert,  in  their  usual  manner,  without 
an  attempt  at  proof,  that  the  Church  of  England,  at  the  time  of  the 
Reformation,  did  not  consider  Episcopacy  as  a  divine  institution. 

I  aver  that  the  Church  of  England,  at  the  time  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, was  Episcopal  both  in  Jact  and  in  theory. 

That  she  Avas  Episcopal  in  fact  cannot  be  doubted.  Hef  Bisho/is 
reformed  from  the  errors  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  thus  pre- 
served to  her  the  divine  succession  of  the  Priesthood.  The  Mis- 
cellaneous author  and  his  friends  may  laugh  at  the  doctrines  of  di- 
■vine  right  and  uninterrufited  succession.  In  doing  this  they  laugh 
at  their  bidie :  for  we  are  there  told,  that  "  no  man  taketh  this 
honour"  (the  office  of  the  Priesthood)  "  to  himself  but  he  that  is 
called  of  God,  as  was  Aaron."  Aaron  held  his  Priesthood  by  divine 
right.  So,  says  the  Apostle,  must  every  Christian  Priest.  And  as  no 
person  is  now  immediately  commissioned  from  Heaven,  how  can  a 
di-vine  right  to  the  Priesthood  be  obtained,  but  from  an  order  of 
men  authorised  in  succession  to  transmit  this  power  from  the  great 
Head  of  the  Church? 

The  Church  of  England  was  Episcopal  at  the  Reformation  from 
choice.  Calvin,  Beza,  and  the  other  foreign  Reformers  congratu- 
lated her  on  possessing  a  primitive  Episcopacy.  The  proofs  of  this 
may  be  found  in  Dr.  Durel's  view  of  the  Churches  beyond  the  seas. 
The  anathema  which  Calvin  denounced  against  all  who  should  not 
reverence  and  submit  to  a  primitive  Episcopacy,  such  as  the  Church 
of  England  possessed,  is  well  known,  and  was  cited  by  the  Layman  in 
his  first  address.  Beza  says,  "  if  there  be  any,  which  you  shall 
hardly  persuade  me  to  believe,  who  reject  the  whole  order  of 
Episcopacy,  God  forbid  that  any  man  in  his  wits  should  assent  to 
the  madness  of  such  men."  He  calls  the  Episcopacy  of  England, 
♦'  a  singular  blessing,"  and  prays  that  "  she  may  ever  enjoy  it." 

With  what  face  then  can  the  Miscellaneous  author  assert,  that 
the  Church  of  England  was  Episcopal  at  the  Reformation  through 
*<  prejudice,  through  interest,  and  a  secret  love  to  the  Romish 
Church  ?"  Was  he  aware  that  he  was  casting  a  base  calumny  on 
the  venei'able  Reformers  of  the  English  Church  ?  Was  he  aware 
that  he  was  grossly  migleading  the  opinions  of  his  readers  ? 

The  Church  of  England  then  Avas  Episcopal  in/act.  This  is  of 
primaiy  impci'tance,  since  it  proves  that  she  preserved  the  divinely 
instituted  mode  of  perpetuating  the  Priesthood.  In  the  confusion 
indeed  attending  the  reformation  and  organization  of  the  Church, 
there  were  some  few  instances  of  persons,  holding  for  a  short  time 
livings,  who  were  not  Episcopally  ordained.    But  this  irregularity 

•  At  the  time  of  writing  ^his,  it  was  not  known  that  "  Clemens"  and 
•'  Umpire,"  ui  well  as  the  "  Inquirer,"  were  written  by  the  author  of  Miv 
ctllanies.  £'^- 


DETECTOR.    No.  11.  1» 

was  soon  corrected  by  public  authority ;  and  the  very  correction 
proves  the  solicitude  of  the  English  Church  to  preserve  Episco- 
pacy. 

The  Church  of  England  at  the  period  of  the  Reformation  was 
Episcopal  also  in  theory^  in  her  public  doctrines  slivI  formularies. 

For  some  time  previous  to  the  Reformation,  the  inordinate  advo- 
cates of  Papal  power  sought,  as  much  as  possible,  to  destroy  Epis- 
copal authority.  What  congeniality  between  them  and4ftrtain  per- 
sons in  modern  times  !  With  this  view  they  endeavoured,  as  much 
as  possible,  to  degrade  the  order  of  Bishops  to  a  level  with  Presby- 
ters. In  this  attempt,  the  Papal  advocates  were  steadfastly  resisted, 
particularly  by  the  Bishops  of  the  Spanish  and  Galiican  Churches. 

This  Popish  error,  however,  on  the  subject  of  Episcopal  autho- 
rity, appears,  at  the  outset  of  the  Reformation,  to  have  tainted  the 
minds  of  some  of  the  Reformers;  who,  though  Episcopalians  in 
fact,  maintaining  steadfastly  the  Episcopal  Pi-iesthood,  were  yet  dis- 
posed to  sink  as  far  as  they  could  the  Episcopal  claims.  Let  it  be 
remembered,  however,  that  they  maintained  these  erroneous  opi- 
nions before  they  had  completely  renounced  the  errors  of  Popery, 
■while  indeed  they  held  many  of  its  most  obnoxious  doctrines.  The 
Miscellaneous  author  and  his  friends  are  welcome  to  their  testi- 
mony at  this  period,  as  it  will  only  prove  what  is  on  all  hands  con- 
ceded, that  one  of  the  errors  of  Popery  was  to  lessen,  as  much  as 
possible,  the  spiritual  authority  of  Bishops,  that  the  Pope  might  be 
exalted  on  their  ruins.  On  a  further  inquiry,  however,  into  primi- 
tive antiquity,  Cranmer  and  his  associates  renounced  whatever  er- 
roneous sentiments  they  may  have  been  disposed  to  entertain  on  the 
tubject  of  Episcopacy,  and  set  forth  and  vindicated  its  just  preten- 
sions. 

"  The  institution  and  erudition  of  a  Christian  man,"  two  books 
drawn  up  by  Cranmer,  and  others,  assert  that  Bishops  are  authoris- 
ed by  our  Saviour  to  coJilinue  the  succession,  and  to  Jierfietuate 
the  hierarchy  ;  and  that  xhcg-ift  of  orders  is  coif  erred  by  consecra- 
tion and  imposition  of  the  Bishofi's  hands.  In  a  Catechism  that 
Cranmer  published  afterwards,  he  fully  owns,  according  to  Bishop 
Burnet,  "  the  divine  institution  of  JSisho/is  and  Frieuts."  And 
his  well  known  sermon  on  "  the  ponver  of  the  Keys"  is  considered 
as  containing  high  Church  notions. 

But  what  puts  the  Episcopacy  of  the  Church  of  England  and 
of  the  Reformers  beyond  all  doubt,  is  the  preface  to  the  book  of 
consecrating  and  ordering  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,  which  was 
drawn  up  by  Ci-anmer  and  the  other  Reformers,  and  still  remains 
part  of  the  faith  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Churches  in  America.  This  preface  begins  thus :  "  It  is 
evident  unto  all  men  diligently  reading  holy  scripture  and  ancient 
authors,  that  from  the  Apostles'  time  there  have  been  three  orders 
of  Ministers  in  Christ's  Church,  Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons." 
Here  the  Episcopal  hierarchy  is  made  to  rest  not  only  on  "  ancient 
authors,"  on  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers,  but  on  "  holy  scripture.'* 
And  the  preface  goes  on  to  state,  that  no  man  is  to  be  considered 
SIS  a  laivful  Minister  who  is  not  ordained  according  to  that  book, 
in  which  the  power  of  ordaining  is  vested  in  Bishops,  or  "  hath 
had  Episcopal  consecration  jind  ordir.aticn.    If  now  tke  Miicella- 

P 


1J06  DETECTOR.    No.  11. 

Bcous  author  should  insist  that  some  Divines  of  the  Church  of  Engs 
land  do  not  maintain  that  "the  holy  scriptures,"  as  well  as  "  ancient 
authors,"  establish  the  Episcopal  hierarchy,  it  will  only  follow,  that 
these  Divines  have  departed  from  tlie  faith  of  their  Church.  H» 
is  welcome  to  their  testimonies.  But  let  me  remind  him,  in  hia 
own  language,  '•  A'b  General  would  think  himself  sa/c  in  an  army 
of  deserters."  They  will  not  add  much  to  his  strength  in  the  day 
of  battle.  Let  me  remind  the  Miscellaneous  author,  that  if  he  con- 
siders the  private  sentiments  of  Divines  as  determining  the  public 
faith  of  a  Church,  the  Church  of  Scotland,  notwithstanding  tha 
high  Calvinism  of  her  Confession  of  Faith,  is  not  Calvinistic ;  since 
it  is  a  notorious  fact,  that  many  of  her  most  distinguished  Divines 
renounce  the  principal  tenet  of  Calvinism. 

But  the  most  singular  attempt  of  the  Miscellaneous  authop 
is  his  attempt  to  injure  the  Episcopal  cause  by  the  testimony 
of  a  distinguished  Bishop.  It  is  singular  indeed,  that  Bishopt 
White,  who  took  unwearied  pains  to  procure  the  Episcopal  suc- 
cession, who  joined  in  repeated  applications  to  the  English  Bishop* 
for  this  purpose,  and  at  length  went  himself  to  England  to  bring  the 
Episcopacy  to  this  coimtry,  sliould  yet  be  represented  as  its  enemy, 
as  denying  entirely  the  necessity  of  Episcopal  ordination,  and  as- 
disposed  to  form  his  Church  upon  the  Presbyterian  mode".^  I  think 
Bishop  White  will  not  consider  this  very  inconsistent  representa- 
tion which  the  Miscellaneous  author  gives  of  him,  as  counterba- 
lanced by  the  very  handsome  compliments  which  are  bestowed 
upon  him.  It  happens  that  I  am  in  possession  of  the  pamphlet  to 
which  the  Miscellaneous  author  alludes,  and  I  think  it  will  be  in  my 
power  to  place  in:  a  proper  light  the  conduct  of  Bishop  White  iiv 
this  business. 

At  the  close  of  the  Revolution,  the  situation  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  was  imminently  critical.  Deprived  of  some  of  her  bes» 
Clergy,  depressed,  and  in  some  places  obnoxious,  serious  were  th» 
apprehensions  concerning  her  which  agitated  the  bosoms  of  her 
friends.  Jarring  opinions  also  v/ere  to  be  reconciled.  While  some 
of  her  members  were  the  zealous  friends  of  Episcopacy,  others  oi 
them  were  more  lax  in  their  opinions  on  this  subject.  The  distress- 
ing situation  of  the  Cliurch  was  increased  by  the  doubt  whether  ic 
•would  be  in  her  power,  for  some  considerable  time  at  least,  to  ob- 
tain the  Efiisco/ud  succession.  Two  objects,  therefore,  appeared  of 
consequence :  To  reconcile  the  dissonant  opinions  of  her  member* 
on  the  subject  of  Episcopacy,  and  to  preserve  the  Church  until 
the  Episcopal  succession  could  be  obtained.  These  difficult  and  im- 
portant objects,  Bishop  (then  only  Dr.)  White,  animated  both  by 
the  warmest  affection  for  his  Church,  and  by  that  spirit  of  conci- 
liation which  has  always  distinguished  him,  attempted  in  his 
pamphlet  to  accomplish.  To  sooth  the  jealousy  of  some  persona 
concerning  the  Episcopacy,  he  sometimes  repi'eseuts  it  as  a  cere- 
mony^ as  a  difiliuted  fioint^  as  a  matter  of  external  order.  All  which 
is  true.  For  the  conferring  of  orders  is  a  ceremony;  Episcopacy 
unfortunately  has,  since  the  time  of  Calvin,  been  dis/:uted ;  as 
Episcopacy  relates  to  government  and  discipline,  it  is  a  maftcr  of 
exter7ial  order.  To  satisfy  persons  of  a  different  description,  he 
speaks  of  a  depax'tuve  from  Episcopacy,  wUich  he  expressly  main* 


Dl?rECTOR.  No.n.  lor 

tarns  is  an  afiofstoKc  institution,  to  be  justifiable  only  in  cases  of  nc- 
tessity  ;  and  therefore  he  proposes  to  obtain  the  Episcopal  succes- 
sion as  speedily  as  possible  ;  and  he  suggests  a  plan  of  Church  go- 
vernment, to  be  observed  till  the  regular  Episcopal  authority 
Could  l^e  obtained.  That  he  proposed  a  tcm^iorarij  drjiarlure  from 
Episcopacy  only  on  the  ground  of  necessity^  is  evident  from  vari- 
ous passages  of  his  pamphlet,  and  particularly  from  page  30, 
■where,  speaking  of  the  opinion  of  Archbishop  Usher,  he  says, 
*'  Whatpart  of  the  Christian  world  could  the  learned  primate  have 
named  of  which  it  could  have  been  so  properly  said  as  may  be  of 
(burs,"  that  "  ordination  of  Bishops  cannot  be  had  ?" 

The  case  of  necessity  is  certainly  a  very  difficult  and  delicate 
*ne.  But  it  by  no  means  follows,  that  they  who  admit  the  plea  of 
necessity  for  a  departure  from  Episcopacy  are  disposed  to  lower 
its  high  claims.  Hooker,  who  admits  this  plea,  and  allows  that  mat- 
ters of  government  or  discipline  are  changeable,  nevertheless  holds 
this  strong  language  concerning  Bishops,  from  which  it  evidently 
appears  that  he  considered  them  to  be  of  divine  authority.  "  And 
shall  we  think  that  James  was  made  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  Evodius 
Bishop  of  the  Church  of  Antioch,  the  Angels  in  the  Churches  of 
Asia  Bishops,  that  Bishops  every  Avhere  were  appointed  to  take 
away  factions,  contentions,  and  schisms,  without  some  like  direction. 
and  instigation  of  the  Holy  Ghof't  ?  Wherefore  let  us  not  fear  to  bo 
herein  bold  and  peremptory,  that  if  any  thing  in  the  Churches'  go- 
vernment, surely  the  first  institution  of  Bisho/ts  was  from  Heaven.^ 
•was  even  of  God  :  the  Holy  Ghost  ivas  the  author  of  it."* 

But  of  what  use  will  the  plea  of  necessity  be  to  the  Miscellaneous 
author  and  his  friends  ?  Do  they  mean  to  justify  by  this  plea  their 
departure  from  Episcopacy  ?  Do  they  mean  to  plead  that  it  is  not 
in  their  power  to  obtain  Bishops  ?  Let  them  come  forward  with  this 
jjlea,  and  we  shall  know  what  answer  to  make  to  them.  The  au- 
thor of  "  The  Companion  for  the  Altar,"  and  "  for  the  Festivals 
and  Fasts,"  whom  the  Miscellaneous  writer  holds  up  as  so  intoler- 
ant and  arrogant,  expressly  admits  unavoidable  causes  as  an  excuse 
for  a  departure  from  Episcopacy. 

*  Hooker's  Eccle.  Pol.  Book  vii.  Sec.  5. 

When  Hooker  says  that  C'ourcb  govenimfnt  is  changeable,  he  does 
not  use  the  term  in  its  most  extensive  sense,  as  including  the  officers  of  the 
Church,  the  orders  of  the  nninistry  ;  but  in  a  more  conjined  sense,  as  relat- 
ing only  to  matters  of  discipline,  to  rites  and  ceremonies.  The  Puritans 
maintained  that  these  were  unchangeable,  on  the  ground,  that  they  ought 
to  be  founded  on  scripture  only,  in  oj)position  to  tlieir  opinion.  Hooker 
and  others  maintained,  that  in  respect  to  discipline,  rites,  and  ceremonies, 
there  was  no  certain  form  of  Church  government  established  in  scripture  ; 
and  that  the  Church  had  a  right  to  prescriije  rites  and  ceremonies,  and  to 
alter  her  discii)line.  But  that  lie  did  not  mean  that  Church  government 
is  changeable  in  respect  to  the  orders  of  t/jc  Ministry,  is  evident  from  the 
»bove  quotations,  and  from  the  whole  strain  of  his  work,  wliich  is  relied 
on  as  the  bulwarii  of  Episcopacy.  The  same  observations  will  apply  to 
many  other  Divines  of  the  Church  of  England.  And  the  not  attending 
to  the  different  senses,  in  which,  on  diflerent  occasions,  they  use  the  term 
Church  government,  lioe  given  rise  to  frequent  misrepresentation  of  tiicir 
i|c|iti:ueuts.  i;VA 


IW  DETECTOR.    No.  IT. 

The  "  Irtnicum"  of  the  famous  Bishop  Stillingflcet,  is  a  favourit* 
book  with  the  advocates  of  parity.  But  let  them  remember  that  he 
wrote  this  book  at  a  very  early  period  of  his  life ;  and  that  he  af- 
terwards not  enly  "  retracted"  but  "  refuted"  the  objectionable 
passages.  His  sermon,  preached  when  Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  at  a 
public  ordination,  from  the  charge  of  St.  Paul  to  Timothy,  "  Lay 
hands  suddenly  on  no  man,"  contains  as  able  a  defence  of  Episco- 
pacy as  its  advocates  need  desire.  The  Miscellaneous  author  will, 
I  think,  be  satisfied  with  one  or  two  quotations  from  it.  "  I  cannot 
find  (says  the  learned  Stillingfleet)  any  argument  of  force  in  the 
New  Testament  to  prove  that  ever  the  Christian  Churches  were 
under  the  sole  government  of  Presbyters."  Speaking  of  the  seven 
Churches  of  Asia,  he  says,  "  The  Bishops  succeeded  the  Afiostlet 
in  the  government  over  those  Churches."  And  again — "  There  is 
as  great  reason  to  believe  the  apostolical  succession  to  be  of  divine 
institution  as  the  canon  of  scrifiturey  ©r  the  obseii'ation  of  the 
jLord's  Day." 

The  Miscellaneous  author  omits  no  opportunity  of  sneering  at 
the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  as  the  friends  of  arbitrary  power  in 
the  Church — it  always  delights  him  to  speak  of  Bishofis  as  "  Lords 
in  God's  heritage."  Let  me  recommend  to  him  the  following  re- 
mark in  this  much  admired  tract  of  Bishop  White,  p.  18.  "  Had 
Rome  been  governed  by  a  Presbytery  instead  of  a  Bishop ;  and 
had  that  Presbytery  been  invested  with  the  independent  riches  and 
dominion  of  the  Papal  See  ;  it  is  easy  to  conceive,  of  their  acquir- 
ing as  much  power  over  the  Christian  world  as  was  ever  known 
in  Gregory  or  Paul." — What !  a  Presbytery^  a  meek,  unassuming 
Presbytery  may  be  even  worse  than  Bishops  ;  they  may  even  vie  in 
ambition  and  tyranny  with  the  Pope  himself.  What  does  the  Mis- 
cellaneous writer  think  of  this  remark  of  Bishop  White  ?  He  will 
no  doubt  admit  it  to  be  highly  "  judicious  and  seasonable."  Let 
me  also  recommend  to  him  another  remark  of  this  distinguished 
Bishop,  in  a  sermon  preached  at  the  last  General  Convention  of  the 
Episcopal  Church.  "  It  seemed  good  to  the  Apostles  to  appoint 
some  of  these  with  a  supereminent  commission,  of  which  there 
were  instances  in  Timothy  and  Titus ;  and  the  persons  so  appointed 
have  handed  down  their  commission  through  the  different  ages  ef 
the  Church.    This  is  the  originally  constituted  order." 

In  the  obnoxious  sentiments  selected  by  the  Miscellaneous  writer 
from  the  works  of  the  author  of  "  The  Companion  for  the  Altar," 
&c.  there  was  no  personal  invective,  no  bitter  sarcasm,  no  low  ri- 
dicule. The  opinions  expressed  were  in  the  language  of  the  pri- 
mitive Fathers,  and  of  some  of  the  most  eminent  Divines  of  the 
Znglisli  Church.  The  application  of  his  general  principles  that 
author  never  presumed  to  make  to  particular  individuals.  The 
sincitre  inquirers  after  truth,  he  placed  within  tlie  embrace  of  the 
merciful  Judge  of  the  Universe,  of  that  gracious  Parent  who  "  know- 
cth  whereof  we  are  made,  and  remembereth  that  we  are  but  dust." 
I  have  carefully  perused  the  obnoxious  volumes,  and  such  I  declare 
to  be  their  general  spirit.  What  has  been  the  course  pursued  by 
the  Miscellaneous  author  ?  With  every  number  his  propensity  to 
personal  invective  and  bitter  sarcasm  appears  to  have  increased. 
In  one  of  his  last  numbers  [No.  XVIII.]  he  compares  some  worthy 


LAYMAN.    No.vm.  109 

Episcopal  Clergymen  to  "  deserters"  and  traitors,  like  Arnold ;  to 
*'  run-away  servants;"  to  "  thieves  and  robbers."  May  we  not 
hope  that  he  has  arrived  at  the  climax  of  scurrility,  that  his  flight 
through  the  regions  of  invective  and  ridicule  cannot  be  much  far- 
ther extended  ?  Would  it  not  be  well  for  him  to  pause  and  seriously 
to  ask  himself,  whether  his  mode  of  controversy  be  worthy  of  tlic 
sincere  inquirer  after  truth  ;  be  worthy  of  the  public  teacher  of  a 
religion  which  forbids  all  rash  invective  ?  Above  all,  whether  it  will 
stand  the  test  of  that  tribunal  at  which  we  must  render  "  an  ac- 
count of  every  idle  word  ?" 

DETECTOR. 


For  the  vilbany  CentineL 
THE  LAYMAN.    No.  VIIL 

J.T  may  be  proper,  now,  to  take  some  notice  of  that  intimate  con- 
nection which  is  admitted  to  exist  between  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testament. 

On  this  point,  however,  it  cannot  be  necessary  to  dilate.  The 
Miscellaneous  writer  will  admit  all  that  I  wish,  under  this  head,  to 
be  admitted.  He  will,  at  once,  acknowledge  that  the  Mosaic  dis- 
pensation was  typical  of  the  Christian,  the  Gospel  being  the  law 
in  substance,  and  the  law  being  the  Gospel  in  figure.  The  law, 
says  the  Apostle,  was  "  our  school-master^  to  bring  us  unto  Christ." 
Cal.  iii.  24.  And  the  Priests  who  offer  gifts,  according  to  the 
law,  are  represeated  by  the  same  inspired  writer,  as  being  "  the 
rxaviplc  atid  shadoiv  of  heavenly  thhig's."  Heb.  viii.  5,  4.  In 
fact,  it  is  impossible  to  look  at  any  part  of  the  Mosaic  system 
without  perceiving,  clearly,  that  it  pointed  to  something  beyond  it- 
self. The  rock  smitten  in  the  desert  was  Christ ;  and  so,  also,  the 
serpent  elevated  on  a  cross,  by  looking  at  which  the  perishing 
Israelites  were  rescued  from  death.  The  manna  that  descended 
from  Heaven  to  sustain  the  followers  of  Moses,  was  typical  of  that 
bread  of  life  on  which  all  the  humble  disciples  of  Jesus  habitually 
feed.  What  was  the  Paschal  Lamb  but  a  most  interesting  emblem 
of  the  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world  !  The  sacrifices 
of  the  law,  at  what  did  they  point,  but  the  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of 
God !  But  on  this  subject  I  must  not  enlarge ;  for,  to  trace  the  pa- 
rallels between  the  law  and  the  gospel  would  require  a  volume. 
They  furnish  a  most  interesting,  and  most  conclusive  evidence  of 
the  truth  of  the  Christian  dispensation.  Our  Saviour  v/as  equally 
prrdicied  by  the  prophets,  and  prefigured  by  the  law.  He  came 
not  to  destroy  the  law  and  the  prophets,  but  to  fulfil. 

Let  us  attend  a  little,  however,  to  the  comparison  between  the 
Jewish  and  Christian  Church,  in  relation  to  the  officers  by  whom 
they  were  respectively  governed. 

The  twelve  Apostles  may  well  be  considered  as  the  patriarchal 
progenitors  of  the  whole  Christian  people.  St.  Paul  speaks  of  his 
converts,  as  of  his  children,  begotten  by  him  to  a  new  life,  through 


no  LAYMAN.    Ko.  \Tn. 

the  preaching  of  the  Gospel.  In  the  Christian  Church,  then,  there 
■were  twelve  Apostles ;  in  the  Jewish,  tliere  were  twelve  patriarchs ; 
find  in  the  heavenly  society,  where  both  are  united,  St.  John  speaks 
to  us  of  four-and-twcnty  elders  seated  round  the  throne  of  God. 
Beside  the  twelve  Apostles,  our  Saviour  commissioned  other  scA^enty 
also ;  the  number  seventy  answering  to  that  of  the  Elders  who  were 
appointed  to  assist  Moses  in  his  ministry. 

We  find  three  orders  of  officers  in  the  Jewish  Church ;  and,  in 
the  Christian,  there  have  always  been  three  orders  answering  to 
these.  What  Aaron,  his  sons,  and  the  Levites  were  in  the  temple, 
that  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons  are  in  the  Church.  Such  is  the 
concurring  testimony  of  the  primitive  Fathers.  Take  that  of  St. 
Jerome,  whom  tlie  advocates  of  parity  are  fond  of  fjuoting,  and  t? 
■^vhom,  thei'efore,  it  is  presumed,  they  will  not  object.  "  That 
tvemay  know  the  afiostQlical  economy  to  he  takeri  from  the  fiat  tern 
cf  the  Old  Testa7ne7it,  the  mmc  titat  Aaron,  and  his  sons,  and  the 
j^evitcs  were  in  the  Temjile,  the  Bishops,  Presbyters,  and  Dea- 
cons are  in  the  Church  of  Christ."  It  is  too  absurd  to  attempt  to 
turn  this  parallel  into  ridicule.  By  the  very  same  mode  of  proceed- 
ing you  may  destroy  the  whole  Christian  dispensation.  In  all  that 
he  has  said  upon  this  point,  the  Miscellaneous  writer  has  contri- 
buted much  more  to  the  support  of  infidelity  than  of  any  other 
Cause. 

How  far,  then,  do  we  carry  this  argimnent  ? 

We  say,  simply,  that  the  law  being  figurative  of  the  Gospel,  in 
all  its  important  parts,  the  Jewish  Priesthood  was,  of  course,  typical 
of  the  Christian.  For  this  we  have  the  expi'ess  declaration  of  the 
Apostle  Paul,  and  the  advocates  of  parity  will  not  pretend  to  con- 
trovert the  position.  Well,  then,  the  Priests- of  the  law  serving  as 
*'  the  example  and  shadow  of  heavenly  things,"  the  circumstance 
of  there  being  three  orders  in  the  Jewish  ministry,  furnishes  a 
strong  presumption  against  the  doctrine  of  parity.  We  do  not  rely 
upon  this  as  proof.  We  merely  state  it  as  presumptive  evidence 
entitled  to  real  attention.  It  gives  us,  we  contend,  possession  of 
the  ground,  and  thi'ows  the  burthen  of  proof  upon  our  opponents. 

Now,  what  says  the  Miscellaneous  v;riter  in  reply  to  all  this  ?  He 
talks  to  us  of  the  dress  of  the  Jewish  high  Priest ;  asking,  very 
sagaciously,  where  are  the  golden  e/ihod,  the  breast  filate,  tiie  em- 
broidered girdle,  in  which  Aaron  and  his  successors  were  clad.  I 
call  upon  him  here  to  lay  his  hand  on  his  heart,  and  say,  whether 
this  is  just  reasoning.  He  knows  that  it  is  not.  What,  the  Jewish 
priesthood  not  figurative  of  the  Christian,  because  of  a  variety  in 
dress  I  Is  it  necessary,  in  order  that  one  thing  be  typical  of  another, 
that  there  should  be  no  points  of  difference  between  them  ?  No 
more  than  it  is  necessary  that  we  should  be  able  to  rise  to  the  per- 
fection of  the  character  of  Christ,  because  we  are  called  upon  to 
propose  him  as  the  model  for  imitation,  and  to  become  holy  as  he 
IB  holy. 

Is  the  Miscellaneous  writer  aware  of  the  conclusion  to  wliich  his 
tnode  of  reasoning  conducts  ?  If  he  has  proved  that  the  Jewish 
Priesthood  was  not  typical  of  the  Christian,  he  has  proved  equally, 
that  the  law  was  not  a  shadow  of  the  Gospel ;  thus  destroying,  ef- 
fectually, all  connection  betweeu  Uje  Old  and  New  Testament.   I« 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  XX.  1H 

there  no  difference  between  our  Saviour  and  the  Paschal  Lamb  bj 
v.Iiicli  he  Avas  prefigured?  Abraham,  Moses,  Joshua,  David,  were* 
all  types  of  Christ ;  but  were  there  no  points  of  distinction  betweca 
these  men  and  the  Saviour  of  the  world  ?  Give  to  the  infidel  the  wea- 
pons of  this  writer,  and  how  easily  will  he  demolish,  with  them,  the 
■whole  fabric  of  Christianity  1  If  the  points  of  difference  which  have 
been  mentioned,  between  the  Priesthood  of  the  law,  and  of  the  Gos- 
pel, prove  that  the  one  was  not  typical  of  the  other,  they  equally  prove 
that  our  Saviour  v/as  never  prefigured,  and  that  that  intimate  con* 
nection,  between  the  Jewish  and  Christian  dispensations,  which  has 
been  so  much  relied  upon  by  the  defenders  of  the  faith,  never  ex- 
isted but  in  the  imaginations, of  men.  But  I  feel  as  it  I  were  insult-i 
ing  the  understanding  of  the  reader,  in  dwelling  on  this  point.  I 
dismiss  it,  therefore,  especially  as  I  have  not  been  able  to  bring 
myself  to  believe  that  the  writer  had  any  thing  more  in  view,  in  it, 
than  a  flourish  of  rhetoric  to  attract  the  vulgar  gaze. 

The  Mosaic  dispensation,  then,  was  figurative  of  the  Christian. 
The  Priesthood  of  the  law  was  typical  of  the  Priesthood  of  the 
Gospel.  The  former  consisting  of  distinct  and  subordinate  orders, 
a  strong  presumption  thence  arises  in  favour  of  that  distinction  and 
subordination  of  office  which,  until  the  days  of  Calvin,  characteriz- 
ed, without  a  single  exception,  the  Cliristian  Church.  This  we 
contend,  as  was  said  before,  gives  us  possession  of  the  ground,  audi 
throws  the  burthen  of  proof  upon  the  advocates  of  parity. 

So  much  then  for  the  Jewish  Priesthood.  It  was  a  shadow  of 
the  Christian  Priesthood,  according  to  the  express  declaration  of 
the  Apostle  Paul.  While  the  Miscellaneous  writer  does  not  venture 
ojicnly  to  deny  this,  bnt  rather  seems  to  admit  it,  in  representing 
the  whole  Jewish  system  as  typical,  he  endeavours,  nevertheless, 
in  an  indirect  manner,  to  destroy  all  relationship  between  the 
Priesthood  of  the  law  and  of  the  Gospel,  by  dwelling  on  the  va- 
riety of  dress,  with  some  otlver  subordinate  points  of  distinction. 
Here  he  acts  with  his  usual  imprudence ;  tearing  up,  in  his  rage 
against  Episcopacy,  the  very  foundations  of  the  Christian  faith. 
^  Layman  of  the  Ejiiscofial  Church, 


D, 


For  the  Albany  Centineh 
MISCELLANIES.    No.  XX. 


'R.  WHiite,  the  present  worthy  Bishop  of  the  Episcopal  Church 
in  Pennsylvania,  proceeds,  in  his  interesting  pamphlet,  to  provne 
*•  that  a  temporary  departure  from  Episcopacy  would  !)e  warranted 
by  her  doctrine,  by  her  practice,  and  by  the  principles  on  which 
P^piscopal  government  is  asserted." 

"  Whatever  that  Churcli  holds,"  savs  he,  "  must  be  included  in 
the  thirty-nine  articles  of  religion;  which  were  evidently  intended 
for  a  comprehensive  system  of  necessary  doctrine."*  But  what  say 

*  It  is  to  be  presumed  t'lttt  the  Liturg/  and  Oifices  of  the  Church  ara 
also  the  siaudurdg  cf  her  doctiine.  E<k 


112  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XX. 

these  articles  on  the  present  subject  ?  Simply,  that  "  the  Book 
of  Consecration  of  Archbishops  and  Bishops,  and  the  ordering  of 
Priests  and  Deacons,  doth  contain  all  things  necessary  thereunto  ; 
neither  hath  it  any  thing  that  of  itself  is  superstitious  and  ungodly," 
[Art.  xxxvi.]  The  canons  speak  jthe  same  sense,  censuring  those 
■who  shall  "  affirm  that  the  government  of  the  Church  of  England, 
by  Archbishops,  Bishops,  &c.  is  anti-Christian,  or  repugnant  to  the 
word  of  God."  [Canon  vii.]  And  those  who  "  shall  affirm  that  the 
form  and  manner  of  making  and  consecrating  Bishops,  Priests,  and 
Deacons,  containeth  any  thing  in  it  that  is  repugnant  to  the  word 
of  God,  or  ihat  they  who  are  thus  made  Bishops,  &c.  are  not  law- 
fully made,"  &c.     [Canon  viii.] 

"  How  can  such  moderation  of  sentiment  and  expression  be  jus- 
tified, if  the  Episcopal  succession  be  so  binding,  as  to  allow  no 
deviation  in  a  case  of  extreme  necessity  ?  Had  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land decreed  concerning  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  only  that 
they  were  '  not  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God,'  and  that  her 
offices  for  those  sacraments  were  '  not  superstitious  and  ungodly/ 
would  she  not  be  censured  by  almost  all  Christendom,  as  renounc- 
ing the  obligation  of  those  sacraments  ?  Equally  improper  would  be 
the  application  of  such  moderate  expressions  to  Episcopacy,  if  (as 
some  imagine)  she  considers  it  to  be  as  binding  as  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  supper." 

"  The  Book  of  Consecration  and  Ordination  carries  the  idea  no 
further,  except  that  the  preface,  as  altered  at  the  restoration  (for 
it  was  not  so  in  the  old  preface),  affirms,  that  *  from  the  Apostles' 
times  there  have  been  these  orders  in  Christ's  Church,  Bishops, 
Priests,  and  Deacons.'  But  there  is  an  evident  difference  between 
tliis  and  the  asserting  the  unlawfulness  of  deviating  from  that  prac- 
tice in  an  instance,  extraordinary  and  unprovided  for." 

It  is  evident,  from  the  foregoing  passages,  that  Bishop  White  does 
not  consider  a  deviation  from  Episcopacy  to  be  forbidden,  either 
by  the  articles,  or  the  canons,  or  the  book  of  consecration  of  the 
Church  of  England — that  he  does  not  consider  it  ''  to  be  as  much 
binding  as  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper" — and  that  the  "  modera- 
tion of  sentiment  and  expression"  show  the  meaning  of  his  Church. 
He  informs  us  that  the  preface  to  the  book  of  consecration  and  or- 
dination was  altered  at  the  restoration ;  but  still  does  not  condemn 
a  deviation  from  Episcopacy  in  particular  cases.  Let  us  hear  now 
what  a  later  writer,  even  the  author  of  "  A  Companion  for  the 
Festivals,"  says :  "  Men  may  with  the  same  reason  abolish  the  sac- 
raments of  the  Church,  and  all  other  Christian  institutions,  as  pretend 
that  the  functions  of  Church  officers  are  mutable  and  temporary." 
This,  and  many  similar  declarations,  would  have  been  more  modest, 
bad  they  contradicted  only  Bishop  White,  and  not  been  opposed  to 
the  standards  of  the  Episcopal  Church.*  The  Bishop  furnishes  next 
precedents  from  the  practice  of  the  Church. 

"  Many  of  the  English  Protestants,"  says  he,  "  during  the  per- 
lecution  by  Queen  Mary,  took  refuge  in  foreign  countries,  particu- 
larly ill  Germany  and  Geneva.  When  protestantism  revived  at  the 
auspicious  accession  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  at  the  same  time  a 

*  See  the  remarki  iit  the  end  of  this  number.  £J. 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  XX.  113 

eloud  was  gathering  on  the  continent,  in  consequence  of  the  Em- 
peror's victories  over  the  princes  of  the  Smalcaidic  league,  in^'ny 
of  the  exiles  returned  to  their  native  land  ;  some  of  whom,  durinj; 
their  absence,  had  been  ordained  according  to  the  customs  of  the 
countries  where  they  had  resided.  These  were  admitted  without 
rc-ordination,  to  preach  and  hold  benefices :  one  of  them  [Whit- 
tingham]  was  promoted  to  a  d  anery ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  as 
several  of  them  were  endeavouring  to  make  innovations  in  the 
established  Church,  it  was  provided  in  a  law  (13th  Elizabeth  12) 
that  '  whoever  shall  pretend  to  be  a  Priest  or  Minister  of  God's 
holy  word,  by  reason  of  any  other  form  of  institution,  consecration, 
or  ordering,  than  the  form  set  forth  by  act  of  parliament,  before  the 
feast  of  the  nativity  of  Christ  next  ensuing,  shall,  in  the  presence  of 
the  Bishop,  declare  his  assent,  and  subscribe  to  all  the  articles  of 
religion  agreed  on,'  &c.  Here  existed  an  extraordinary  occasion, 
rot  provided  for  in  the  institutions  for  common  use;  the  exigency  of 
the  case  seems  to  have  been  considered;  and  there  followed  a  tolera- 
tion, if  not  implied  approI)ation,  of  a  departure  in  that  instance  from 
Episcopal  ordination."  The  Bishop  has  inserted  here  the  following 
note:  "  Bishop  Burnet  says  (History  of  his  own  times,  anno  1661) 
that  until  the  act  of  uniformity,  passed  soon  after  the  restoration, 
those  who  came  to  England,  from  the  foreign  Churches,  had  not 
been  required  to  be  ordained  among  us.  If  so,  the  argument 
founded  on  practice,  extends  further  than  it  has  been  urged.  The 
act  of  Elizabeth,  however,  had  no  operation  beyond  the  Christmas 
next  ensuing;  neither,  indeed,  did  it  pronounce  that  a  good  ordi- 
nation whicii  would  have  been  otherwise  defective  ;  but  its  being 
meant  to  comprehend  those  who  were  at  that  time  invested 
•with  foreign  non-episcopalian  ordination,  is  evident  from  their 
being  actually  allowed  to  preach  and  hold  benefices,  on  the  condi- 
uoii  of  their  subscribing  the  thirty-nine  articles."* 

*  The  reader  is  earnestly  requested  to  peruse  tlie  following  extract,  from 
Dr.  Chaiidlfr's  Ajjpeal  Defended,  pa^e  43,  &c.  concerning  those  persons 
in  Elizabeth's  rei^n,  \v\\j  held  preferments  without  being  episcopally  or- 
dained. Dr.  Chandler  is  rcplviiig  to  Dr.  Chauncy,  who  had  urged  the 
above  instances  as  proofs  that  the  Church  of  England  did  not  maintain  the 
necessity  of  irlpisccpal  ordination. 

"  The  foreign  Divines  mentioned  by  the  Doctor,  viz.  P.  Martyr,  M. 
Pucer,  and  P.  Faghts,  who  were  admitted,  without  re-ordination,  not  to 
rcdeciasticat  preferments  ii:  the  established  Church  (excepting  P.  Martyr,  who 
had  been  cjtunopally  onlaiued,  and  was  made  at  last  Canon  of  Christ's 
Church),  but  to  academical  preferments  in  the  Universities,  came  over 
upon  the  invitation  of  Cranmcr,  and  were  settled  in  tlieir  respective  places 
before  the  Ordinal  was  compiled  and  established.  As  to  Whittinghani  and 
Trarers,  the  two  other  instances  pointed  out  by  the  Doctor;  the  former 
was  preferred  in  the  early  pavt  of  Elizalifth's  reign,  by  the  interest  of  the 
Karl  of  Leicester,  the  great  patron  of  the  Puritans.  Upon  the  accession 
cf  that  Princess,  she  found  tlie  affairs  of  religion  in  a  confused,  precarious 
state;  and  the  great  object  of  her  attention  was,  first,  t  n  hnng  about  (quietly, 
if  possible,  the  re-establishnicnt  of  the  Protestant  religion,  as  it  had  been 
reformed  in  the  reign  of  King  Jidivard;  and  tlien  to  secure  it  against  tlic 
attempts  of  the  Papi.sts.  All  her  political  address  was  requisite  for  con- 
<Jucting  this  important  work,  as  it  was  foreseen  that  innumerable  dangers 

Q 


114  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XX. 

No  Presbyterian  could  reason  more  to  the  purpose  than  Bishop 

would  attend  it.  In  this  condition  of  things,  it  was  found  necessary  to 
encourage  and  employ  all  persons  indiscriminately,  who  were  known  to  be 
disafiected  to  Popery,  and  were  thought  able,  by  writing  or  preaching,  to 
combat  successfully  its  distinguishing  princijiles.  WMttingham  was  a  per- 
son of  this  character,  and  although  not  lawfully  ordained,  yet,  by  the  con- 
nivance of  some,  and  the  interest  of  others,  he  obtained  the  Deanery  of 
Durham.  Tracers,  a  noted  Puritan,  and  a  popular  preacher,  one  of  those 
who  went  over  to  Antvjerp  for  ordination,  finding  the  Mastership  of  the 
Temple  vacant,  made  use  of  all  his  interest  to  obtain  it ;  and  he  succeeded 
so  far,  that  he  engaged  even  the  Lord  Treasurer,  J5u/-/ei^i),  to  recommend  him 
for  the  appointment.  But  the  Archbishop  opposed  it,  alleging  his  irregular 
behaviour,  and  the  insufficiency  of  his  ordination.  The  event  was,  that 
Gravers  was  set  aside,  and  the  place  given  to  his  competitor,  the  celebrated 
Hooker.  His  friends,  however,  made  a  shift  to  keep  him  in  as  a  preacher  of 
the  afternoon  lecture. 

"  Having  shown  in  what  manner  Whitthghani  and  Travers  got  their 
preferments,  I  shall  go  on  to  observe,  that  there  were,  in  the  former  part 
of  this  reign,  many  instances  of  tnere  Layvicn,  without  any  kiiid  of  ordi- 
nation, who  had  the  address  to  possess  themselves  of  livings  in  the  Church. 
•  Nicholas,  Bishop  of  Bangor'  says  one  who  was  most  cncumstantially 
acquainted  with  the  history  of  those  times,  '  having  this  year  (1567)  made 
some  inspection  into  the  condition  of  his  diocess,  sent  the  Archbishop, 
according  to  his  order,  the  names  of  all  the  Dean  and  Chapter,  and  of  all 
the  Ministers  in  his  diocess,  with  account  of  their  residency  and  their  hos- 
pitality ;  such  also  as  were  not  Deacons  nor  Priests,  and  yet  held  ecclesi- 
astical preferments.  To  the  end,  as  he  wrote,  that  his  Grace  might  per- 
ceive, how  men  that  were  no  Ministers  had  such  livings,  to  the  utter  de- 
cay of  learned  men  to  be  Ministers,  where  others  had  that  liberty  to  hold 
benefices,  and  not  to  be  in  orders.'*  If  then  the  preferments  of  such  men 
as  Whitt'uighain  and  Travers  are  a  proof,  that  in  this  reign  the  ordination 
of  Presbyters  was  allowed  to  be  valid;  those  preferments  which  were  held 
by  the  Laity  are  also  a  proof,  that  no  ordination  at  all  ivas  thought  to  be 
necessary. 

"  But  neither  of  these  conclusions  ought  to  be  admitted  ;  since  we  know 
upon  the  strongest  evidence,  that  it  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Church 
throughout  the  whole  of  the  reign  we  are  considering,  that  ordination  was 
of  divine  appointment,  and  that  Episcopal  ordination  was  of  apostolical 
institution  ;  and  that  it  was  an  established  law  from  the  very  beginning  of 
it,  that  '  no  man  should  be  accounted  or  taken  to  be  a  lawful  Bishop, 
Priest,  or  Deacon  in  the  Church  of  England,  or  suffered  to  execute  any  of 
the  said  functions,'  without  Episcopal  ordination.  Yet,  notwithstanding, 
it  was  impossible  to  prevent  transgressions  of  it  in  some  instances;  and 
Kuch  instances  show,  not  what  was  approved  of,  but  what  was  overlooked 
or  permitted,  through  the  necessity  of  the  times.  These  irregularities, 
however,  were  corrected  by  degrees;  a»d,  in  a  course  of  years,  they  were 
entirely  removed.  In  1585,  the  Archbishop  took  cognizance  of  the  case 
of  Travers,  objecting  to  '  his  ordination  at  Antwerp,  and  his  denying  to 
receive  the  orders  of  the  Ministry  according  to  the  English  book  of  ordi- 
nation.' 7'r avers  drew  up  the  reasons  for  his  conduct,  and  presented  them 
to  the  Lord  Treasurer,  who  sent  them  to  the  Archbishop.  The  Arch- 
bishop returned  them  with  short  marginal  animadversions,  some  of  which 
1  will  transcribe,  for  the  use  of  Dr.  Chauncy  and  his  friends.    '  As  to  that 

"  *  Life  of  Parker,  p.  256." 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  XX.  115 

White.*  Had  the  same  just  and  liberal  views  been  discovered  by 
others,  no  controversy  had  arisen.  Had  it  been  consistent  with 
brevity,  tlie  Bishop  might  easily  have  shown  that  the  assertion  of 
Bishop  Burnet  is  correct ;  he  might  have  given  other  instances  in 
practice,  particularly  the  ample  licence  of  Archbishop  Grindal  to 
John  Morrison,  who  had  no  other  ordination  than  by  a  Scots  Pres- 
bytery ;t  and  he  might  have  enlarged  on  the  striking  instance  of 

•assertion,  that  Ministers  lawfully  made  in  any  Church  of  sound  profession 
in  the  faith,  were  acknowledged  such  in  any  other ;  and  this  to  be  the  uni- 
versal and  perpetu:d  practice  ;  the  Archbishop  made  this  only  exception  ; 
always  excepting  sucb  C/jurc/jes  as  allcnved  of  Presbytery  and  executed  it.  Then 
as  to  his  examples,  this  was  the  Archbishop's  animadversion — that  he 
knew  no  such  foreign  Ministers  executing  tlieir  Ministry  here ;  but  if  there 
were,  their  cause  was  far  differing  from  his — that  Mr.  JVhittin^bani,  had 
he  lived,  had  been  deprived,  without  special  grace  and  dispensation;  al- 
though his  cause  and  Mr.  Travcrs's  were  nothing  like — That  the  laws  of 
this  realm  required,  that  such  as  were  to  be  allowed  as  Ministers  in  this 
Church  of  England,  should  be  ordained  by  a  Bishop,  and  subscribe  to  the 
articles  before  him.  Lastly,  whereas  TJrtw;,?  had  said,  that  the  last  Arcii- 
bishop  o£  Canterbury  was  acquainted  with  his  manner  of  calling  to  the  Mi- 
nistry, and  so  was  the  Bishop  of  London,  and  were  contented  he  should 
preach  at  the  Temple  (as  he  had  done  now  almost  six  years),  and  that  the 
present  Archbishop  himself  had  not  taken  any  exceptions  against  it ;  our 
Archbishop  said,  that  this  v/as  to  abuse  their  patience,  and  that  le  ne-jer 
allo-vjed  of  bis  kind  of  calling,  neither  coidd  he  allow  qfit."^ 

Who  can  say,  after  reading  the  last  paragraph  of  the  above  extract,  that 
Whitgift,  who  is  the  Archbishop  there  quoted,  did  not  maintain  the  neces- 
sity of  Episcopal  ordination  ?  Or  who  will  contend  that  the  few  irregulari- 
ties which  took  place  in  the  time  of  Elizabeth,  during  a  period  of  imminent 
difficulty,  invalidate  the  declarations  of  the  public  oflices  of  the  Church, 
which  maintain  the  necessity  of  Episcopal  ordination  ?  £d. 

*  It  will  be  seen  by  the  letter  nnder  the  signature  of  an  Episcopalian, 
vthat  this  compliment  is  disclaimed  by  the  person  for  wliom  it  was  in- 
tended. Ed. 

t  That  Archbishop  Grindal  was,  in  some  instances,  lax  in  his  principles 
and  discipline  is  confessed.  His  remissness  in  repressing  the  irregularities 
of  the  Puritans  called  forth  the  reproof  of  the  privy  council.  The  learned 
Collier,  in  his  accurate  and  sensible  history,  inserts  this  letter  of  the  privy 
council  to  Archbishop  Grindal,  and  prefaces  it  with  the  following  remark. 
"  Archbishop  Grindal  being  thought  too  gentle  and  remiss  in  his  manage- 
ment, the  privy  council  wrote  to  him  to  complain  of  the  relaxation  of  dis- 
cipline."    Ccl.  Ecclc.  Hist.  vol.  ii.  p.  571. 

It  is  also  a  fact  that  he  licensed  Morrison  ;  and  Collier  makes  the  follow- 
ing judicious  remarks  \ipon  it.  "  Before  the  Archbishop's  jurisdiction  was 
returned,  Dr.  Aubrey,  his  Vicar-General,  granted  a /)reac/6/?;_^  licence  to  one 
John  Morrison,  a  Scotchman,  in  which  he  allows  the  orders  of  a  Presby- 
ter given  him  by  the  Scotch  Church."  Collier  then  inserts  the  licence,  and 
afterwards  remarks — "  By  the  clauses"  (in  the  licence)  "  of  ^antum  in 
nobis  est  fas  iriuch  as  iji  us  lies  J ,  et  de  jure  possunius  fand  according  to 
right  can  do  J,  et  yuatenus  jura  regni  patiuntur  ("and  as  far  as  the  laius  of 
the  kingdom  suffer  us),  it  is  jjlaiu  that  Aubrey  (who,  as  the  Vicar-General 
of  the  Archbishop,  granted  the  licence)  was  somewhat  conscious  of  a  strain 
upon  the  English  constitution;  and  that  the  Archbishop  was  not  so  (inn 

"  \  Llf«  of  Whitgift,  p  2J2." 


116         REMARKS  ON  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XX, 

Whittingham.  But  he  has  done  enough.  One  authentic  instance 
is  as  good  as  a  thousand.  What  creddl  now  is  to  be  given  to  the 
assertions,  that  "  the  validity  of  Presbyterial  ordination  has  been 
denied  from  its  origin" — and  that  it  has  been  adopted  from  "  neces- 
sity f"  Where -was  the  necessity  that  Whittingham  and  others 
should  remain  without  Episcopal  ordination?  Were  thei-e  no  Eng- 
lish Bishops  ;  or  were  there  none  willing  to  ordain  them  ?  No  such 
thing.  Their  ordination  was  admitted  by  the  Church  and  by  the 
state  to  be  valid.  Could  not  Calvin  have  obtained  Episcopal  ordina- 
tion ?  Yes;  he  might  have  been  a  Bishop,  a  Cardinal,  any  thing  ht 
pleased.  He  was  highly  esteemed  and  honoured  by  the  first  Re- 
formers, and  his  name  will  be  had  in  everlasting  remembrance. 

The  pamphlet  of  Bishop  White  is  very  rare,  and  therefore  I  can- 
not dismiss  it  without  further  extracts.  This  is  doing  justice  to 
Episcopalians  themselves ;  and  I  do  not  despair  of  its  producing 
some  effect  upon  those  who  are  teaching  things  "  contrary  to  sound 
doctrine." 


\_Reviarks^  by  the  Editor,  on  the  preceding  N^umberS\ 

The  preceding  number  contains  the  very  serious  charge,  that  th«^ 
author  of  the  "  Companion  for  the  Festivals,"  8cc.  has  "  opposed 
those  standards  of  his  Church,"  which  he  solemnly  promised  t6 
maintain.  He  intreats  the  patience  and  candid  attention  of  the 
reader  while  he  vindicates  himself  from  this  charge. 

It  will  be  recollected  that  he  maintains  the  divine  institution  of 
Episcopacy ;  that  Episcopacy,  therefore,  is  to  be  placed  on  a  footing 
with  other  divine  institutions ;  and  that  of  course  a  departure  frorw 
it  can  only  be  excused  by  necessity,  by  unavoidable  ignorance,  oi* 
invoiuntary  error.  And  as  a  necessary  result  of  the  divine  institu- 
tion of  Epi-copacy,  he  maintained,  as  a  general  proposition,  subject, 
doubtless,  to  the  exceptions  above  mentioned,  that  Episcopal  ordi- 

to  Episcopal  right  and  apostolical  succession,  as  might  have  been  expected." 
Collier.  Eccle.  Hist.  vol.  ii    p.  579. 

But  because  Giindal  was  lax  in  some  of  his  principles  and  in  his  conduct, 
does  it  follow  that  the  Bishops  of  the  Church  were  generally  so?  Or,  be- 
cause, in  the  difficulty  and  confusion  attending  the  settlement  of  a  Church, 
some  irregularities  were  connived  at,  is  it  a  proof  that  the  Church  does  not 
maintain  the  declarations  of  her  pubHc  services  ?  If  one  of  the  Presbyteries 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  were  to  acknowledge  a  man  as  a  Minister  who 
had  not  received  what  that  Church  considers  as  a  regular  call  and  commis- 
sion to  the  Ministry,  would  this  prove  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  does 
not  maintain  the  necessity  of  such  call  and  commission  ?  Surely,  the  occasional 
irregularities  of  any  Chiuxh,  or  the  lax  j)r)nciples  or  conduct  of  some  of  hej" 
members,  should  not  be  considered  as  aiiectmg  her  public  faith  and  doc- 
trines. The  triumph  with  vrhich  the  author  of  Miscellanies  adduces  these 
instances,  is  surely  premature.  While  the  public  standards  of  the  Church 
of  England,  and  her  constant  and  acknowledged  practice  sanction  only 
Ej)iscopal  ordination,  some  few  irregularities  in  llie  first  settlement  of  the 
Church,  when,  from  peculiar  circumstances,  it  was  difficult  and  almost  im- 
possible to  enforce  strict  order  and  discipline,  wUl  pass  for  nothing.    Ed, 


REMARKS  ON  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XX.         117 

hation  is  necessary  to  the  exercise  of  a  valid  ministry.  Let  us  now 
see  whether,  in  maintaining  these  opinions,  he  has  opposed  the 
standards  of  his  Church. 

He  takes  it  for  granted,  that  the  book  of  consecration  of  Bishops 
and  of  ordering  of  Priests  and  Deacons,*  is  one  of  the  standards  of 
his  Church  ;  as  this  book  is  not  only  ratified  by  the  Articles,  bat 
was  solemnly  set  forth  by  the  Church,  several  years  before  she 
formally  adopted  the  Articles. 

In  opening  this  book,  he  is  struck  with  the  preface,  wiiich  begins 
with  the  following  sentence  :  "  It  is  evident  unto  ail  men  diligently 
reading  Holy  Scri/iitire,  and  aricient  authors^  that  fi-om  the  yl/ios- 
lles'  times  there  have  been  these  orders  of  Ministers  in  Christ's 
Church,  Binhofia^  Priests,  and  Deacoiis."  The  fair  construction  of 
tliis  passage  is,  that  the  Holy  Scn'/uures  ])rove  the  institution  of 
Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,  and  that  ancient  authors  prove  the 
same. 

But  he  will  not  rest  the  conformity  of  his  opinions  to  the  stand- 
ards of  his  Church  on  this  proof  alone.  Going  on  in  the  preface  he 
iinds  the  following  sentence  :  "  No  man  shall  be  accounted  or  taken 
to  be  a  laivfiU  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon,  in  this  Church,  or  suf- 
fered to  execute  any  cf  the  said  functions,  except  he  be  called, 
tried,  examined,  and  admitted  thereunto,  according  to  the  form 
hereafter  following,  or  hath  had  E/iiscofial  consecration  or  ordina- 
tion," Here  the  laivfidness  of  a  Minister  is  rested  on  his  having 
Episcopal  consecration  or  ordination.  Is  not  this  the  very  language 
of  the  "  Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts  ?"  The  force  of  the 
term  "  lawful"  has  been  evaded  in  England,  where  the  Church  is 
established,  by  saying  that  by  the  term  "  lawful  Minister,"  is 
merely  meant  his  being  acknowledged  by  the  law  of  the  land.  In 
this  country,  hov.ever,  no  such  evasion  of  the  term  can  be  re- 
sorted to.  The  term  as  used  by  the  Episcopal  Church  here,  can 
have  only  an  ecclesiastical  signification,  and  must  mean  latv/ul  in 
the  eye  of  the  Church.  Consider  "  lawful"  as  denoting  sufficiency 
of  authority  ;  then,  since  the  Church  declares  that  no  man  shall  be 
considered  as  a  "  lawful"  Minister,  who  hath  not  had  Episcopal 
consecration  or  ordination,  she  excludes  all  Ministers  from  having 
sufficient  autliority,  who  are  not  thus  ordained  or  consecrated.  Is 
not  this  the  language  of  the  '^  Companion  for  the  Festivals,"  &:c.  I 
^Vith  what  justice  can  the  author  of  that  book  be  accused  of  oppo- 
shig  the  standards  of  his  Church  ? 

In  the  office  for  orderin'j  Deacons,  the  first  prayer  thus  com- 
mences: "  Almighty  God,  tvho,  by  thy  Divine  Providence,  liast 
appointed  divers  orders  of  Ministers  in  thy  Church,"  Sec.  And 
the  prayer  goes  on  to  rank  Deacons  as  one  of  the  orders  of 
jMinisters  tints  appointed. 

In  the  office  for  ordering  Priests,  the  first  prayer  thus  com- 
mences: "  Almighty  God,  giver  of  all  good  things,  "d-ho,  by  thy 
Holy  Spirit,  hast  appointed  divers  orders  of  Ministers  in 
thy  Chtirch,"  Sec.     And  the  prayer  evidently  ranks  Priests^ 
among  the  orders  thus  ufipointed. 

*  This  book  is  inserted  in  the  Philadelphia  edition  of  the  Common  PrayOT 
Book,  royal  octavo,  and  in  tlie  N*w-Vork  quarto  edition. 


113  CYPRIAN.    No.  IV. 

In  like  mannel-,  in  the  office  for  the  consecration  of  Bishbps,  the 
second  prayer  thus  commences:  "  Almighty  God,  giver  of  all 
good  things,  who,  by  thy  Holy  Spirit,  hast  appointed  divers 
ORDERS  of  Ministers  in  thy  Church,"  &c.  And  the  prayer  plainly 
ranks  Bishops  among  the  orders  thus  appointed.  In  the  other 
offices,  the  Bishop  ordains.  Deacons  and  Presbyters  do  not 
receive  the  power  of  ordination.  It  is  I'^sted,  at  his  consecratioiij 
in  the  Bishop  only. 

Here  then  the  Church  expressly  declares  that  Almighty  God 
appointed  divers  orders  of  Ministers  in  his  Church  ;  that  these  or- 
ders are  Deacons,  Priests,  and  Bishops  ;  to  tlie  last  of  whom  alone 
appertains  the  poioer  of  ordi?iation.  Are  not  these  the  doctrines 
maintained  by  the  author  of  the  "  Companion  for  the  Festivals," 
&c.  ?  With  what  justice  can  he  be  accused  of  opposing  the  stand- 
ards of  his  Church  ?  What  he  inculcates  may  not,  indeed,  be  of 
much  importance  ;  but  what  the  standards  of  the  Church  inculcate 
is  of  the  first  importance  to  all  her  Ministers  and  to  all  her  mem- 
bers. If  the  above  declarations  from  her  services  do  not  prove 
that  she  maintains  the  divine  institution  of  Episcopacy,  and  acknow- 
ledges only  Episcopal  ordination,  he  confesses  himself  unable  to 
Judge  of  the  meaning  of  terms  or  the  force  of  language. 

In  peaceably  and  decently  maintaining,  in  her  public  offices,  the 
necessity  of  Episcopal  ordination,  the  Episcopal  Church  gives  no 
just  cause  of  offence  to  other  denominations.  She  exercises  only 
the  same  right  which  they  possess ;  a  right  of  which  no  human 
power  can  justly  deprive  her.  To  deny  her  this  right ;  to  attempt 
to  deter  her  from  the  exercise  of  it,  by  a  system  of  denunciation, 
ridicule,  and  obloquy,  is  to  display  a  spirit  of  persecution,  which, 
in  this  age,  and  in  this  country,  will  surely  be  reprobated  by  good 
men  of  all  denominations.  £,d» 


For  the  Albany  Centinel. 

CYPRIAN.    No.  IV. 

X  HE  instances  that  have  been  adduced  of  Titus  at  Crete,  of  St. 
James  at  Jerusalem,  of  Epi.phroditus  at  Philippi,  of  the  seven  Bi- 
shops of  the  Pro-Consular  Asia,  and  of  Timothy  at  Ephesus,  are, 
surely,  competent  to  demonstrate  the  existence  of  the  Episcopal 
dignity  in  the  Church  of  Christ  during  the  Apostolic  age.  From 
these  combined  sources  we  derive  accumulated  and  satisfactory' 
evidence. 

And  let  it  not  be  forgotten,  that,  notwithstanding  what  has  been 
said  by  the  Miscellaneous  writer,  and  by  many  other  advocates  of 
his  cause,  a  strong  argument  in  our  favour  is  to  be  drawn  from 
the  exact  correspondence  between  the  orders  of  our  Priesthood 
and  those  which  were  instituted  in  the  Jewish  Church.  At  least 
we  have  a  right  to  avail  oursehes  of  this  circumstance,  if  it  be  ad- 
mitted that  the  Apostles  and  the  early  Fathers  adopted  in  their 
writings  a  legitimate  mode  of  reasoning. 


CYPRTAN.    No.  IV.  119 

It  will  not  be  denied  by  any  one  who  is  acquainted  with  the  sacred 
scriptures^  that  the  Jewish  dispensation,  altliough  not  in  all  its  mi- 
nute points,  yet  certainly  in  its  outlines,  was  typical  of  the  Christian. 
In  the  one,  the  other  was  completely  adumbrated.  And  were  not 
the  ordei's  of  the  Levitical  Priesthood — was  not  the  form  of  Eccle- 
siastical government  established  by  Moses,  a  very  important  part 
of  the  old  dispensation?  Is  it  not  probable  that  by  the  orders  of  the 
Jewish  Priesthood  were  adumbrated  corresponding  orders  in  the 
Christian  Church? 

But  we  are  told  "  that  the  whole  Jewish  dispensation  was  typical, 
and  was  completely  fulfilled  and  abolished  at  the  coming  of  Clirist." 
This  is  partly  true.  But  wa;>  tht  substance  also  abolisiied  with  the 
shadow  ?  Can  it  be  supposed  that  Christ  did  not  intend  to  perpetu- 
ate the  Priesthood?  And  if  he  did  intend  to  institute  a  Priesthood, 
why  should  not  the  law  in  this  instance,  as  well  as  in  every  other, 
be  a  "  shadow  of  the  good  things  to  come?"  Under  the  old  dispen- 
sation, by  various  types,  tlie  new  one  was  prefigured.  Christ  himself 
was  adumbrated  by  unnumbered  figures.  So  also  was  his  Church. 
So  also  were  many  institutions  of  his  Church.  And  why  should 
not  this  be  the  case  v/ith  his  institution  of  Ecclesiastical  government? 
Why  should  not  the  orders  of  the  Priesthood  under  the  old  econ- 
omy be  supposed  to  typify  those  orders  that  were  to  be  established 
under  the  new  ?  Besides,  the  fact  is,  that  the  Christian  dispensation 
was  not  so  much  the  abolition,  as  it  was  the  fulfilment  of  the  Jew- 
ish. Christ  came,  not  to  cleat roy^  but  to  fulfil  the  lav/  and  the 
prophets. 

It  is  true,  that  in  many  respects  God  accommodated  himself  as 
a  merciful  and  wise  Legislator,  to  the  peculiar  circumstances  of 
the  Jewish  nation,  and  thereby  rendered  the  law  a  school-master, 
that  prepared  tliem,  by  its  instructions,  for  the  coming  of  Christ. 
But  all  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  systems  he  pursued  to- 
wards the  Jewish  and  Christian  people,  were  precisely  the  same. 
From  these  great  principles  there  Asaa  no  necessity  that  he  should 
stoop,  in  order  to  suit  himself  to  the  sentiments,  the  manners,  and 
prejudices  of  his  people.  The  revelations  which  he  communicated 
to  Jews  and  Christians,  in  relation  to  his  own  nature  and  attributes, 
in  relation  to  the  origin,  the  fall,  the  restoration,  the  present  con- 
dition, and  the  everlasting  destiny  of  the  human  race,  were  pre- 
cisely the  same.  The  moral  laws,  which  he  promulgated  to  the  one 
people,  and  the  other,  were,  with  a  very  few  modifications,  the 
same. 

So  also  the  form  of  ecclesiastical  government  was,  with  very 
little  alteration,  the  same  amongst  Jewish  and  Christian  people. 
There  can  be  conceived  to  be  no  necessity  on  this  point  for  a  radical 
change — a  total  abolition.  The  form  of  Church  government  esta- 
blislied  l)y  Moses,  was  as  much  the  appointment  and  institution  of 
God,  as  that  which  was  established  by  Christ  himself.  Why  then 
should  God  be  supposed  to  have  abolisiied  his  own  institution,  where 
no  imperious  necessity,  as  in  the  case  of  the  rites  and  ceremonies, 
and  peculiar  usages  of  the  Jewish  Church,  seemed  to  require  it,  be- 
fore he  could  usher  in  the  new  dispensation  ?  It  is  true,  indeed,  we 
possess  not  tiie  Jewish  form  of  Church  government.  We  possess 
one,  hovvcvcr,  v.hich  is  the  consummation  of  tlie  Jewish — a  govern- 


no  CYPRIAN.    No.  IV. 

ment  of  which  the  Jewish  was  an  imperfect  image.  We  possess  at, 
Priesthood  more  glorious  than  the  Levitieal,  inasmuch  as  it  minis- 
ters under  a  more  glorious  dispensation — inasmuch  as  it  performs 
purer  and  more  exalted  offices — inasmuch  as  in  its  nature  and  offi- 
ces, it  is  the  glorious  substance  which  was  only  faintly  shadowed  out 
under  the  law. 

We  think,  therefore,  that  we  stand  on  substantial  ground  when 
■we  maintain  that  we  derive  a  strong  argument  in  demonstration  of 
the  divine  origin  of  our  form  of  Church  government,  by  showing  that 
on  this  point  the  new  dispensation  is  made  to  correspond  with  the 
old ;  is  made  the  true  substance  of  which  the  old  was  the  shadow. 
What  the  High  Priests,  the  Priests,  and  the  Levites  were  in  the 
temple,  such  are  the  Bishops,  the  Presbyters  and  Deacons  in  the 
Church  of  Christ.  This  is  the  uniform  language  of  the  Fathers. 
This  is  the  coriclusion  to  which  the  data  affi^rded  us  by  the  Apostles 
inevitably  lead. 

Such  was  the  model  of  Church  government  instituted  by  God 
himself,  and  intended  to  be  transmitted  through  all  ages,  with  mo- 
difications that  should  vary,  no  doubt,  according  to  the  varying 
circumstances  of  mankind;  provided  these  modifications  aiFected 
not  its  great  and  cardinal  principles.  We  say  that  the  Jewish 
Priesthood  was  the  image  of  the  Christian.  We  say  that  it  is 
sound  reasoning  to  deduce  the  probable  form  of  the  substance  from 
the  lineaments  of  it  that  may  be  traced  in  its  image. 

Nor  will  our  mode  of  reasoning  tend  in  the  smallest  degree  to 
favour  the  pretensions,  or  sanction  the  usurpations  of  the  Pope  of 
Rome.  Let  it  be  remembered,  that  wherever  there  is  a  Bishop, 
Presbyters,  Deacons,  and  a  people,  there  we  believe  also  is  the 
Church  of  Christ.  It  is  a  matter  of  no  importance  whether  his 
jurisdiction  be  extended  over  a  smaller  or  a  greater  territory.  A 
Bishop,  says  St.  Jerome,  has  the  same  authority  whether  he  be 
placed  over  the  diocese  of  Eugubium  or  of  Rome ;  of  Rhcgium  or 
Constantinople. 

Nor  does  it  diminish  the  force  of  that  evidence  which  we  derive 
in  support  of  our  cause,  from  the  similitude  between  the  Jewish  and 
our  Priesthood,  from  the  one  being  typical  of  the  other,  that  the 
analogy  cannot  be  traced  through  every  minute  point.  As  well 
might  the  infidel  attempt  to  prove  that  none  of  the  types  which  are 
considered  by  believers  as  having  a  reference  to  our  Saviour,  can 
properly  be  applied  to  him.  Not  one  of  them  will  apply  to  him  in 
every  particular.  As  to  the  ■i'emaining  obsei'vations  made  on  this 
head  by  the  "author  of  Miscellanies,"  I  make  no  remarks  upon 
them.  I  leave  it  to  his  readers  to  determine  whether  they  do  any 
credit  to  his  understanding  or  his  feelings. 

These  are  the  arguments  which  we  derive  from  Scrifiture^  in 
proof  of  the  Apostolic  origin  of  our  form  of  Church  government. 
We  trust  they  are  satisfactory  to  every  unprejudiced  mind. 

And  what  are  the  considerations  by  which  tlie  advocates  of  parity 
endeavour  to  evade  the  force  of  this  sti-ong  and  accumulated  evi- 
dence ?  By  a  few  expressions  of  scripture,  almost  too  inconsiderable 
to  merit  a  moment's  examination.  From  the  pi'omiscuous  use  of 
the  terms  Bishop  and  Presbyter  in  the  sacred  scripture — from  its 
being  mentioned  in  one  place,  that  Timothy  was  ordained  "  with 


CYPRIAN.    No.  IV.  121 

the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery" — from  the  transaction 
that  took  place  between  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and  the  men  of  Anti- 
och — from  such  considerations  as  these,  do  tliey  endeavour  to  coun- 
teract the  evidence  which  we  derive  from  the  most  clear  and  ini- 
doubted  facts.  After  what  has  been  already  advanced  on  these 
points,  it  is  altogether  unnecessary  that  I  should  dwell  upon  them. 

The  argument  which  tlic  advocates  of  parity  mice  attempted  to 
draw  from  the  promiscuous  use  of  the  terms  Bishop  and  Presbyter, 
is,  I  believe,  at  this  time  generally  relinquished.  It  is  too  feeble  to 
merit  a  serious  reply. 

With  regard  to  the  passage  in  which  St.  Paul  exllorts  Timothy 
"  to  stir  Up  the  gift  v/hich  v/as  in  him,  v/hich  was  given  hin\  by 
prophecy,  with  tlie  laying  on  of  the  bauds  of  the  Presbytery;"  I 
wish  to  be  indulged  only  in  a  fev/  remarks.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  when  St.  Paul  speaks  of  the  gift  v/hich  was  imparted  to  him  by 
the  laying  on  of  /i.'s  liands,  it  refers  to  the  same  transaction.  St. 
Paul  then,  at  any  rate,  was  himself  present  at  the  ordination  of 
Timothy.  This  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  every  purpose  which  we 
wish  to  accomplish.  This  pas-sage  does  not  f;how  that  Presbyters 
alone  ever  possesied  the  power  of  ordination*  St.  Paul  was,  in 
this  instance,  obviously  associated  with  them. 

But  the  author  of  "  Miscellanies,"  i;)efore  he  enters  on  this  part 
of  his  subject,  offers  up  a  petition,  Avhich  certainly  merits  our  very 
serious  attention^  He  prays  that  the  same  spirit  which  indited  the 
word  may  also  direct  him  in  the  interpretation  of  it.  If  he  will 
avow  that  his  petition  was  granted,  that  the  spirit  for  which  he  of- 
fered up  his  solemn  petition  was  dispensed  to  him,  surely  it  would 
be  rashness,  it  would  Ije  presumption  in  us  to  proceed  a  step  fur- 
ther. VViio  shall  dare  make  one  inspired  paimnn  contradict  or 
even  misunderstand  another  ?  Nevertheless,  since  after  the  inter- 
pretation he  hath  given  to  the  yjhrase  "  by  prophecy,"  there  seems 
to  be  no  internal  evidence  of  his  having  really  received  tliis  super- 
natural power,  and  since  he  hatli  not  as  yet  afforded  us  any  exter- 
nal proof  on  which  to  found  pretensions  of  this  kind,  we  hope  we 
shall  be  excused  for  our  infidelity,  when  we  reject,  as  unv/orthy  of 
credit,  the  whole  of  what  he  has  advanced  on  this  part  of  the  subject. 
It  is  altogether  unsupported  by  any  proof.  This  has  been  amply  de- 
monstrated in  the  answer  he  hath  already  received.  It  would  be 
to  impose  on  the  patience  of  the  public,  should  I  attempt  to  enter 
a  field  which  has  been  so  thorougiily  explored. 

The  sect  of  Presbyterians  can  derive  no  advantage,  then,  to  their 
cause  from  that  passage  of  St.  Paul's  Epistle  already  illustrated  ; 
nor  will  they  be  any  more  profited  l)y  tlie  transaction  which  took 
place  between  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and  the  people  of  Antioch.  Let 
them  prove  to  us,  that  this  was  a  real  ordination,  and  not  a  mere 
benediction,  a  ceremony  very  common  in  the  J<nvish  Church;  let 
them  show  us  that  the  Apostles  did  not  always  esteem  it  as  their 
peculiar  privilege  to  have  received  their  consecration  to  their  office 
immediately  from  the  hands  of  Christ  himself,  and  that  this  is  not 
the  only  way  in  which  they  were  ordained  ;  let  them  show  us  that 
St.  Paul  had  not  been  already  ordained  by  Christ  whilst  on  his  Avay 
to  Damascus  pcrsecuiing  his  Church  ;  in  short,  let  them  show  us 
tU.it  this  was  not  altot'-ether  an  extraordinary  affair,  and  therefore, 

K 


123  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XXI. 

not  tending  to  establish  a  precedent  by  which  to  regulate  the  future 
practice  of  the  Chu  ch  ;  let  them  prove  these  things,  and  then  we 
"will  admit  that  this  fact  gives  some  countenance  to  Presbyterian 
principles.  Let  their  Ministers  prove  to  us  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
Ixath  ever  said  to  their  congregations  as  it  did  to  the  people  of  An- 
tioch,  Sefiarate  me  such  men  for  the  Ministry.^  mentioning  their 
names,  and  we  will  no  longer  question  their  jus  divinum — we  will 
no  longer  require  even  their  ruling  Elders  to  give  validity  to  the 
work  of  their  ordination. 

Such  is  the  abundant  proof  which  the  Scriptures  afford  us  in 
favour  of  Episcopacy. 

Such  are  the  feeble  attempts  that  have  been  made  to  invalidate 
them.  CYPRIAN. 


I 


For  the  Albany  CentineL 
MISCELLANIES.    No.  XXL 


T  may  be  expected  that  the  sentiments  of  Bishop  White,  of 
Pennsylvania,  will  have  greater  weight  with  Episcopalians  than  any 
thing  which  could  be  written  by  m^yself.  He  wrote  at  a  time  critical 
to  the  Episcopal  Churches,  has  accurately  examined  the  subject, 
and  prudently  accommodated  himself  to  the  prejudices  of  many  of 
those  for  whom  he  wrote.  His  station  in  the  Church  and  his  cha- 
racter, alone  entitle  him  to  respect  and  attention.  In  stating  "  the 
grounds  on  which  the  authority  of  Episcopacy  is  asserted,"  he 
differs  widely  from  those  late  writings  which  have  given  such  just 
cause  of  offence.  "  That  the  Apostles,"  says  he,  "  were  succeeded 
by  an  order  of  Ministers  superior  to  Pastors  in  general.  Episcopa- 
lians think  they  prove  by  the  testimonies  of  the  ancient  Fathers, 
and  from  the  improbability  that  so  great  an  innovation,  as  some  con- 
ceive it,  could  have  found  general  and  peaceable  possession  in  the 
second  or  third  century,  when  Episcopacy  is  on  both  sides  acknow- 
ledged to  have  been  prevalent."  The  use  here  of  the  words  think f 
and  as  some  conceive  it,*  plainly  enough  intimate  the  Bishop's  own 
opinion.  The  author  of  "  A  Companion  for  the  Festivals,"  &c. 
not  only  thinks,  but  is  sure,  and  will  allow  nobody  else  so  much  a» 
to  think,  except  those  who  show  "  ignorance^  invincible  firejudices^ 
imperfect  reasonings,  and  mistaken  judgments,"\  Bishop  White 
proceeds  to  reason  as  follows : 

*  The  words  "  as  some  conceive  it''  evidently  apply  to  the  opponents  of 
Episcopacy.  Ed. 

j:  Does  not  the  Miscellaneous  author  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  in  the  necessity  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper?  Does  he  not 
believe  that  those  who  reject  them  are  "  imperfect"  in  their  "  reasonings," 
"  mistaken"  in  their  judgements  ?  What  excuse  will  he  make  for  them  but> 
that  their  "  ignorance"  is  "  unavoidable,"  their  "  error  involuntary,"  ot 
their  "  prejudices  invmcible  ?"  Now  may  not  the  Quaker  and  the  Sccii^ian 
urge  against  the  author  of  Miscellanies,  the  same  charges  of  arrogame,  of 
bigotry,  and  intolerance  which  he  60  frequently  and  charitably  applies  to  the 
author  of  the  "  Companion  for  the  Festivals,"  &c  ? 

In  regard  to  the  different  style  of  this  book,  and  of  the  pairfphlet,  it  may 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  XXI.  lU 

"  That  the  Apostles  adopted  any  particular  form,  affords  a  pre- 
sumption of  its  being  the  best,  all  circumstances  at  that  time  consi- 
dered ;  but  to  make  it  unaltei'ably  binding,  it  must  be  shown  en- 
joined in  positive  precept.*  Bishop  Hoadly  clearly  points  out  this 
distinction  in  his  answer  to  Dr.  Calamy,  The  latter  having  consi- 
dered it  as  tlie  sense  of  the  Church,  in  the  preface  to  the  Ordinal, 
that  the  three  orders  were  of  Divine  appointment,  and  urged  it  as 
a  reason  for  non-conformity  ;  the  Bishop,  with  evident  propriety, 
remarks,  that  the  service  pronounces  no  such  thing ;  and  that,  there- 
fore. Dr.  Calamy  created  a  difficulty  where  the  Church  had  made 
none ;  there  being  "  some  difference,"  says  he,  "  between  these  two 
sentences — Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,  are  three  distinct  or- 
ders in  the  Church,  by  Divine  apfioinOnent ;  and—/ro7n  the  ^fio8~ 
ties'  time,  there  have  been  in  Christ's  Church,  Bishops,  Priests,  and 
Deacons.f  The  same  distinction  is  accurately  drawn,  and  fully 
proved  by  Stillingfleet,  in  the  Irenicum. 

"  Now,  if  the  form  of  Church  government  rests  on  no  other 

be  proper  to  mention  that  their  object  was  different.  The  design  of  the 
one  was  the  elucidation  and  defence  of  the  principles  of  the  Church  ;  the 
design  of  the  other  was  to  conciliate  and  to  reconcile  opposite  opinions; 
and  prejudices,  and  to  unite  all  parties  in  a  plan  which  the  author  recom- 
mended for  the  government  of  the  Church,  till  the  succession  could  be  ob- 
tained. As  the  author  of  that  pamphlet  himself  observes,  in  his  first  letter, 
in  the  subsequent  pages,  under  the  signature  of  an  Episcopalian,  "  the  state- 
ment of  the  Episcopalian  opinion  is  introduced"  (in  his  pamphlet)  "  not 
in  an  argumentative  manner,  but  in  reference  to  an  object  very  different 
from  that  of  the  comparative  merits  of  Episcopacy  and  Presbytery.  To 
the  purpose  of  the  author  of  the  pamphlet,  it  was  sufficient  that  Episco- 
palians "  thought"  as  he  defines ;  whether  they  thought  rightly  or  not  on 
the  question  between  them  and  the  anti-Episcopalians."  How  uncandid 
then  is  the  author  of  Miscellanies  in  the  remarks  which  he  makes  concerning; 
the  author  of  the  "  Companion  for  the  Festivals,"  Sec.  Ed. 

•  See  the  last  paragraph  of  the  remarks  at  the  end  of  this  number,     ^d. 

f  Dr.  Calamy  appears  to  have  understood  the  preface  to  the  ordinal  ac- 
cording to  its  natural  and  obvious  meaning.  The  entire  sentence,  part  of 
which  only  is  quoted  in  the  above  passage,  reads  thus  :  "  It  is  evident 
unto  all  men  diligently  reading  Holy  Scripture  and  ancient  authors,  that  from 
the  Apostles'  times  there  have  been  these  orders  of  Ministers  in  Christ's 
Church,  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons."  Now,  suppose  the  Church  had 
said.  It  is  evident  unto  all  men  diligently  reading  Holy  Scripture  and  an- 
tient  authors,  that  from  the  Apostles'  times,  the  doctririe  of  the  Trinity  has 
been  received  in  the  Church  ;  would  not  the  natural  interpretation  of  this 
sentence  be,  that  the  Church  had  always  received  a  doctrine  which  waa 
established  in  Holy  Scripture,  and  supported  by  the  testimony  of  ancient 
authors  ?  Is  it  i>ot  common  in  every  disputed  point  of  theology,  to  endea- 
vour to  prove  it  in  the  first  instance  from  Holy  Scripture,  and  then  to  show, 
from  the  testimony  of  the  primitive  writers,  that  we  have  not  mistaken  the 
sense  of  Scripture !  And  in  regard  to  all  these  points,  is  it  not  common  to 
say  that  they  are  proved  by  Scripture  and  ancient  author:,  an  expressiom 
always  understood  as  equivalent  to  t/iwif  authority  or  appointment?  The 
prayers,  however,  in  the  offices  of  ordination  already  quoted,  put  the  sense  of 
the  Church,  as  to  the  divine  appointment  of  Bishops,  Pkiests,  and  Dea.- 
80NS,  beyond  all  doubt.  In  regard  to  the  sentiments  of  Bishop  Hoadly, 
see  the  remark*  at  the  end  of  this  number.  Ed, 


124  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XXL 

foundation  than  ancient  and  apostolic  firactice^  it  is  humbly  submit- 
ted to  consideration,  whether  Episcopalians  will  not  be  thought 
scarcely  deserving  the  name  of  Christians,  should  they,  rather  than 
consent  to  a  temporary  deviation,  abandon  every  ordinance  of  posi- 
tive and  Divine  appointment." 

Here  Bishop  White  agiees  with  Bishop  Hoadly,  and  both  de- 
clare that  three  orders  are  not  of  Divine  afj/iointment,  and  that  this 
is  not  the  sense  of  their  Church  in  the  v/ords  of  the  preface  to  the 
Ordinal.  Bishop  White  insists  that  there  should  be  fiodti-ve  pre^ 
ce/it^  as  well  as  a/iostolic  practice^  to  make  Episcopacy  invariably 
binding.  In  this  he  has  gone  further,  perhaps,  than  I  v/ould  go  * 
His  meaning,  however,  1  apprehend  to  be,  that  the  practice  of  the 
Apostles,  who  were  extraordinary  officers,  is  not  binding,  nor  can 
be  followed  by  us.  In  this  he  is  undoubtedly  right ;  and  the  distinc- 
tion between  the  first  constitution  of  the  Church  and  the  practice 
to  be  followed  afterwai'ds  is  highly  important.  The  extraordinary 
powers  which  the  Apostles  exercised  died  with  them.f  Let  this  be 
attended  to,  and  all  that  high-flying  Episcopalians  say  about  Ti- 
mothy being  made  Bishop  at  Ephesus,  and  Titus  left  at  Crete,  will 
appear  perfectly  trifling.  The  truth  is,  that  they  were  either  com- 
panions of  Paul  in  his  travels,  or  sent  by  him  to  preach  and  or- 
ganize churches  in  certain  places.|  Paul  acted  under  the  imme- 
diate authority  of  the  glorious  Head  of  the  Church  ;  he  employed 
Timothy,  Titus,  and  others,  to  whom  he  gave  special  directions  for 
their  work.  This  I  take  to  be  the  meaning  of  Bishop  White  ;  as 
well  as  that  the  ordinances  of  divine  worship,  which  were  of  posi- 
tive appointment,  were  not  to  be  abandoned  for  tliat  concerning 
which  there  could  be  produced  no  positive  precept  v/hatever» 
Bishop  White  gives  the  sentiments  of  several  writers  of  his  Churcli, 
and  their  own  explanation  of  them,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  following 
extract : 

"  Any  person  reading  what  some  Divines  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land have  written  against  Dissenters,  would,  in  general,  widely  mis- 
take their  meaning,  should  he  apply  to  tl^e  subject  before  us  the 
censures  he  will  sometimes  meet  with,  which  have  in  view,  not 
merely  tlie  merits  of  the  question,  but  the  duty  of  conforming  to  the 

•  Let  the  reader  take  particular  notice  of  this.  The  author  of  Miscel- 
lanies, with  great  propriety,  appears  unwilling  to  admit  that  apoito/ie 
practice  is  not  a  grouvid  of  obligation  in  institutions  v.hich  are  evidently 
not  local  and  temporary,  but  general  and  permaneut ,  in  their  design  and 
uses.  Ed. 

f  Wers  not  the  gift  of  miracles,  the  gift  of  tongues,  &c.  extraordinary 
powers?  and  did  these  die  with  the  Apostles?  Were  tlipv  not  continued 
among  many  of  the  primitive  Christians  ?  Does  tlie  IViu^eJlaneous  autlior 
mean  to  assert  that  the  j)ower  of  ordination,  and  the  power  of  governing 
the  Church,  died  with  tlie  Apostles?  Did  ilicy  not  communicate  these 
j)owers  to  their  successors  ?  Ed. 

^  It  appears  from  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  to  Timod-.y  and  Titus,  that 
Jhey  were  scut  to  Ephesus  and  Crete,  to  ordain  Elders  and  Deacons.  Now, 
if  llie  Elders  v.'ho  were  at  Ephcs:!s  and  Crete,  before  Timothy  and  Titus 
were  sent  there,  possess'^d  tLr-  power  of  ordination,  v.-as  it  not  worse  than 
»";eless — was  ii  net  an  aJ.'Voiit  lo  liiose  Kldeis,  lo  send'l'iinothy  and  Titus 
fi'  t'MTcite  liiii  power?  E/^. 


MISCELLANIES.    'Ko.  XXL  125 

l-stablishcd  Church,  in  all  things  not  contrary  to  the  law  of  God. 
Thus  Bishop  Stillingfleet,  ^vho,  at  the  restoration,  had  written  with 
great  tenderness  towards  the  Dissenters,  and  many  years  after- 
wards preached  a  sermon  on  a  public  occasion,  containing  severe 
animadversions  on  their  separation,  on  being  accused  of  inconsist- 
ency, replies  (in  the  preface  to  his  treatise  on  tlie  unlawfulness  of 
separation),  that  the  former  was  '  before  the  laws  were  establish- 
ed ;"  meaning  principally  the  act  of  uniformity.*  So  also  Bishop 
Hoadly  says,  the  acceptance  of  re-ordination  by  the  dissentinjj 
Ministers,  would  not  be  a  denial  of  that  right,  which  (as  they  con- 
ceived) Presbyters  had  to  ordain  ;  but  a  confession  that  their  former 
ordination  was  '  so  far  null  and  void,  that  God  did  not  approve  the 
exercise  of  that  in  oppositiow  to  the  lawful  settled  method.'  Dr. 
Henry  Maurice  also,  who  has  written  with  gi-eat  learning  and  re- 
jnitation  in  defence  of  Episcopacy,  makes  the  same  distinction ; 
observing,  that  the  '  Dissenters  do  foi'eign  churches  great  injustice 
>vhen  they  concern  them  in  their  quarrel,'  the  ordination  of  the 
latter  being  not  only  without,  but  in  opposition  to  Bishops,  against 
all  the  established  laws  of  this  Church,'  Sec.  Even  where  the  same 
distinction  is  not  expressed,  it  is  genei'ally  implied,  "f 

Bishop  White  has  given  the  main  argument  to  some  of  the  most 
learned  and  able  writers  in  fa^'our  of  Episcopacy.  They  do  not 
contend  for  it  as  of  dhnne  rij^ht^  but  as  being  established  by  laws. 
They  do  not  deny  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination  otherwise 
tlian  as  its  being"  in  opposition  to  the  lawful  settled  method"  in  the 
realm. I  The  following  note  of  Bishop  ^^'hite  is  worthy  of  regard 
lor  its  justness  and  candour. 

•  Bishop  Stillingfleet,  in  his  sermon  preached  at  St.  Paul's,  and  alrcadj 
<^v.oted  in  Detector,  No.  II.  certainly  denied  ilie  rij.';ht  of  Presbyters  to  or- 
»iain,  and  maintained  that  the  apostolical  succession,  in  the  order  of  Bishops, 
stood  on  the  same  ground  of  obligation  with  tiie-  canon  of  scrijiture  and 
the  observance  of  the  Loid's  day.  £,d. 

f  There  v.as  certainly  a  diiTcrcr.ce  betv.-cen  the  foreign  churches  and 
the  Dissenters  of  England.  The  one  pleaded  tlic  necessity  and  the  peculiar 
circumstances  of  their  situation  as  an  excuse  for  their  departure  from  Epis- 
copacy ;  the  other  acted  in  direct  oppositioi:  to  the  authority  of  Bishops. 
Dr. Maurice,  while  he  makes  this  distinction,  is  steadfast  in  maintaining  that 
Christ  and  his  Aposdes  instituted  Bishops  in  tlie  Church  ;  vested  them  with 
the  exclusive  power  of  ordination ;  and  placed  tlK-m  over  congregations, 
and  over  the  other  orders  of  Ministers,  with  the  power  of  governing  them. 
'Ihese  are  palpably  the  positions  which,  with  great  force  of  learning  and 
reasoning,  he  maintains,  in  his  treatises  on  Diocesan  Episcopacy,  against 
Clarkson  and  Baxter.  Even  the  most  strenuous  asseners  of  the  divine 
right  of  Episcopacy  spoke  v/ith  delicacy  el"  the  situation  of  some  of  the 
fc'ixign  churches,  solely,  however,  on  the  principle  tliat  they  departed  from 
Episcopacy  on  the  ground  of  necessity ;  that  their  en  or  was  uiiavoldahlc , 
and  might  therefore  be  excusable.  Ed. 

\  It  is  most  astonishing  that  Divines  of  the  Church  of  England,  who 
maintain  that  the  Apostles,  under  the  direction  of  Christ,  instituted  three 
orders  of  the  Ministry,  and  ve;>ii.il  the  first  order  with  the  power  of  ordi- 
nation, should  be  repicLCnted  as  "  no  otherwige  denying  the  validity  of 
Presbyterian  ordination,  than  as  its  being  in  opposition  \.o  the  lawful  settled 
method  in  the  rralm."  Let  the  reader  j)enise  the  rc;v.ai!.&  on  this  extra- 
oi  Jiu-iry  usiiertlon  at  ihc  cad  of  lids  nurabcr.  £id. 


126         REMARKS  ON  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XXL 

"  In  England,  the  members  of  the  established  Church  consider 
the  Dissenters  as  blameable  in  not  conibrming  to  it  as  such,  there 
being  nothing  required  contrary  to  the  law  of  God.*  These,  on 
the  other  hand,  blame  the  members  of  the  establishment,  for  not 
yielding  to  their  conscientious  scruples,  which  thus  exclude  them 
from  public  offices,  and  subject  them  to  considerable  burthens. 
Such  were  the  principal  sources  of  the  animosities  which  have  sub- 
sisted between  the  two  parties  ;  and  hence  arises  an  argument  for 
charity  and  mutual  forbearance  among  religious  societies  in  Ame- 
rica, with  whom  the  same  causes  of  contention  and  mutual  censure 
have  no  place,  and  with  whom,  of  course,  the  same  degree  of  bit- 
terness would  be  less  excuseable  than  in  England.f 

How  often  do  facts  baffle  all  conjecture  !  Who  could  have  sup- 
posed that  in  the  United  States,  more  intolerant  principles  \  would 
have  been  advanced  than  in  England  ?  The  good  Bishop  has  lived 
to  see  his  advice,  as  to  ordination,  rejected,  and  his  hopes  frustrated 
by  some  who  pretend  to  be  wiser  than  their  fathers.  If,  by  the  ex- 
tracts which  I  have  made,  or  those  I  shall  yet  make,  any  resent- 
ment against  him  may  be  excited,  it  will  only  add  brightness  to  his 
graces,  and  immortality  to  his  performance. 


IRemarkSy  by  the  Editor^  on  the  preceding  JViiinber.'\ 

The  author  of  Miscellanies,  in  the  preceding  number,  and  ia 
many  other  passages  of  his  Miscellanies,  is  anxious  to  establish  the 
idea  that  "  the  most  learned  and  able  writers  in  favour  of  Episco- 
pacy," contend  for  it  not  as  of  <'  divine  right,"  but  merely  as 
established  by  human  lanvs  ;  and  that  of  course  they  did  not  deny 
the  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination. 

To  disprove  this  assertion  by  examining  all  the  writers  in  favour 
of  Episcopacy,  can  hardly  be  expected.  As  Hooker,  however, 
has  been  represented  as  of  the  opinion  above  stated  ;  and  as  from 
his  profound  learning,  and  unrivalled  strength  of  talents  and  rea- 
soning, his  authority  would  have  great  weight,  it  may  be  proper  t» 
examine  how  far  the  charge  applies  to  him. 

The  reader  has  already  seen,  in  Detector,  No.  2,  that  Hooker, 


*  It  is  presumed  they  also  thought  Dissenters  blameable  in  not  con- 
forming to  orders  of  the  Ministry,  which  "  it  is  evident  unto  all  men  dili- 
gently reading  Holy  Scripture  ar,  i  ancient  author*  had  been  in  Christ's  Church 
from  the  Apostles'  times."  £d. 

f  It  is  to  be  presumed,  that  in  order  to  maintain  the  Divine  institution  of 
Episcopacy,  it  is  not  necessary  to  violate  the  dictates  of  "  charity  and  mu» 
tual  forbearance,"  or  to  indulge   in  any  inexcusable  "  bitterness."        Ed. 

I  Must  the  author  of  Miscellanies  again  and  again  be  told,  that  the 
principles  which  he  calls  "  intolerant"  were  avowed,  during  the  primi- 
tive ages,  by  some  of  the  most  meek  and  humble  men  that  ever  adorned 
the  Christian  Church — men  who  patiently  bowed  their  backs  to  the 
scourge,  and,  without  a  murmur,  gave  their  bodies  to  the  fires  of  the 
stake  ?  Ed. 


REMARKS  ON  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XXI.         127 

who  is  represented  by  the  opponents  of  Episcopacy  as  allowing  in 
general  terms  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination,  boldly  asserts 
that  the  "  institution  of  Bishops  is  from  God^  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
the  author  of  it."  This  surely  is  contending  for  Episcopacy  as  of 
Divine  right. 

In  regard  to  the  power  of  ordination,  Hooker  explicitly  vests  it 
in  Bishops  alone.  "  The  power  of  ordaining'  both  Deacons  and 
Presbyters,  the  power  to  give  the  power  of  order  unto  others,  this 
also  hath  been  always  peculiar  unto  Bishops.  It  hath  not  been 
heard  oJ\  that  inferior  Presbijters  were  ever  authorined  to  ordain." 
Eccle.  Pol.  book  vii.  sec.  6.  Speaking  of  the  decree  of  the  coun- 
cil of  Carthage,  in  the  fourth  century,  when,  for  the  first,  Presbyters 
•were  associated  with  Bishops  in  ordination,  he  says,  "  The  asso- 
ciation of  Presbyters  is  no  sufficient  proof  that  the  power  of  ordi- 
nation is  in  them  ;  but  rather  that  it  7icver  was  in  them,  we  may 
hereby  understand ;  for  that  no  man  is  able  to  show  either  Deacon 
or  Presbyter,  ordained  by  Presbyters  only,  and  his  ordination  ac- 
counted lawful  in  any  ancient  part  of  the  Church  ;  every  where 
examples  being  found  both  of  Deacons  and  Presbyters,  ordained  by 
Bishops  alone  oftentimes,  neither  even  in  that  respect  thought 
insufficient."  Eccle.  Pol.  book  vii.  sec.  6.  Is  it  possible  for  any 
man  to  be  more  explicit  in  maintaining  that  the  power  of  ordination 
is  vested  in  Bishops  alone  ? 

And  in  what  case  does  Hooker  dispense  with  Episcopal,  and  admit 
Presbyterian  ordination  ?  Only  in  those  cases  in  which  every  man 
•would  be  disposed  to  permit  a  departure  from  any  positive  institu- 
tion ;  "  when  the  exigence  of  necessity  doth  constrain  to  leave 
the  usual  ways  of  the  Church,  which  otherwise  we  would  willingly 
keep  ;  where  the  Church  must  needs  have  some  ordained,  and 
neither  hath,  nor  can  have  possibly  a  Bishop  to  ordain,"  A  case 
«f  extreme,  of  inevitable  necessity  can  alone,  in  the  opinion  of 
Hooker,  justify  a  dej)arture  from  Episcopal  ordination.  On  account 
of  this  case  of  necessity,  he  admits,  ''  VVe  are  not  simply  and  without 
exception,"  to  insist  on  Episcopal  ordination.  But  it  is  evident  that, 
•with  this  exception  alone,  we  may,  according  to  Hooker,  urge  "  a 
iineal  descent  of  power  from  the  Apostles,  by  continued  succession 
of  Bishops  in  every  effectual  oi'dination."  For  in  the  strongest  lan- 
guage, he  excludes,  in  every  other  case,  all  ordination  but  Episco- 
pal. "  These  cases  of  inevitable  necessity  a/on(r  excepted, 
iioNE  MAY  ORDAIN  BUT  ONLY  BisHOPS."  See  Hookcr's  Eccie. 
Pol.  book  vii.  sec.  14. 

Unblushing  then  must  be  that  confidence  which  will  maintain  that 
Hooker  admits  in  general  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination. 
A  case  of  extreme  necessity  can  never  sanction  Ti  general  practice, 
.nor  establish  a^  general  principle.  Hooker  dispenses  with  Episcopal 
ordination  only  in  a  case  where  the  divine  institutions  of  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  Supper  may  be  dispensed  with ;  in  a  case  oi  inevitable  ne- 
cessity. Let  us  no  more  then  be  told,  in  the  language  of  the  author 
cf  Miscellanies,  that  "  the  most  ab'e  and  learned  writers  in  favour 
of  Episcopacy"  do  not  deny  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination, 
otherwise  than  as  its  being  in  opposition  to  the  "  lawful  settled  me- 
thod in  the  realm ;"  that  they  "  do  not  contend  for  Episcopacy  as  of 
divine  right,  but  as  being  establiahtd  by  laws."    They  maintain. 


128         REMARKS  ON  MISCELLANIES.     No.  XXI. 

Tvith  Hooker,  that  the  "  institution  of  Bishops  is  of  God^  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  the  author  of  it;"  and  they  admit  of  »  departure  from 
Episcopal  ordination  only  in  "  a  case  of  inevitable  necessity." 

And  of  what  avail  will  this  exception  be  to  the  opponents  of  Epis- 
copacy ?  Will  they  justify,  by  the  plea  of  necessity,  their  departure 
from  Episcopacy  ?  Will  they  join  issue  upon  this  plea  with  the 
advocates  of  Episcopacy,  and  admit  that  "  cases  of  inevitable  «e-- 
cesaity  excepted,  none  may  ordaiii  but  only  liis/w/is  P"  Happy 
•would  it  be  for  the  Christian  world,  if  the  opponents  of  Episcopacy 
would  act  upon  this  principle.  The  schisms  that  now  rend  the 
body  of  Christ,  and  give  occasion  to  the  enemy  to  blaspheme,  woultj 
be  healed.  Christians  would  all  be  united  as  one  fold,  under  one 
Shepherd.  The  prayer  of  Christ  for  his  followers  would  be  ac- 
complished, "  May  they  all  be  one,  as  thou  Father  art  in  me,  and 
I  in  thee  ;  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us." 

Bishop  HoADLY  is  often  brought  forward  by  the  anti-Episcopa» 
lians  as  the  champion  of  their  cause.  And  yet  his  defence  of  Epis- 
copacy against  Dr.  Calamy,  contains  arguments  in  favour  of  it  that 
we  certainly  should  not  expect  to  hear  from  one  who  was  not  heax*- 
tily  its  friend.  He  contends  for  Episcopacy  in  the  first  place,  on  the 
ground  of  "/2?Y'scrzy///o?:,  and  the  lawfubicss  of  the  thing  itself;'* 
observing,  on  this  argument,  that  the  "  most  learned  patrons  of  the 
Presbyterian  cause  have  never  been  able  to  produce  any  positive 
proof  of  any  time  in  the  Christian  Church,  since  the  Apostles'  days, 
when  it  was  esteemed  the  office  of  every  Minister  of  the  gospel 
to  ordain  others  to  the  ministry  ;  or  when  this  office  was  not  ac- 
knowledged by  all  who  speak  any  thing  of  it,  to  belong  to  single 
/lersoJis  SUPERIOR  X.o  ordinary  Presbyters."*' 

His  next  argument  in  favour  of  Episcopal  ordination  is  "  taken 
from  the  instances  of  ordination  recorded  in  the  New  Testament." 
On  this  argument  he  observes,  that  "  no  such  I'ight  in  Presbyters 
to  ordain  as  is  of  late  years  claimed,  can  be  concluded  from  any  of 
the  instances  produced  out  of  scripture  in  favour  of  Presbyterian 
ordination."  But,  on  the  contrary,  he  "  doubts  not  to  prove  that 
there  is  no  example  of  ordination  alleged  in  their  behalf,  in  which 
•we  find  not  some  ecclesiastical  officer  acthig  su'iicrior  to  the  ordi- 
nary teachers  of  those  days." 

Bishop  Hoadly  next  supports  Episcopal  ordination  "  from  the 
rules  concerning  ordination  in  the  Nev/  Testament ;"  observing,  that 
ther^  are  no  rules  on  "  the  point  of  ordination  but  what  are  given 
to  persons  sujierior  to  the  Predryters^  and  ordinary  teachers  of 
those  days."  He  considers  the  instances  of  Timothy  and  Titus  as 
conclusive  in  fiivour  of  Epi.xopal  ordination  ;  observing,  that  it  is 
"  a  very  remarkable  thing,  that  when  there  were  Presbyteks 
already  settled  at  Efihcsus  and  at  Crete,,  and  such  as  were  without 
doubt  as  fit  to  ma.nage  the  business  of  ordination  as  any  in  later 
ages,  that  St.  Paul  should  not  think  fit  to  entrust  this  affair  witl\ 
them  and  their  Presbyteries,  but  should  devolve  it  ncholly  on 
Timothy  and  Titus  ;  and  instead  of  sending  his  directions  to  the 

*  Hf^aclly's  "  Brief  Dc  Fence  of  Episcopal  Ordination."  The  qucta'.ions 
arc  taken  iVoni  '.he  tiist  ch:ii;ter. 


y 


REMARKS  ON  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XXI.         12f 

teachers  already  m  those  ftlaces,  should  appoint  these  two  to  this 
office,  without  the  least  mention  of  any  such  right  in  those  teachers, 
as  they  must  have  had  according  to  some  modern  reasonings." 
The  argument  for  Episcopacy,  from  the  cases  of  Timothy  and  Titus, 
cannot  be  placed  in  a  stronger  point  of  view  than  it  is  by  Bishop 
Hoadly  in  the  above  extract. 

Bishop  Hoadly  founds  his  fourth  argument  in  favour  of  Epis- 
copacy on  a/iosiolical  institution ;  alleging,  explicitly,  "  that  the 
Apostles  left  the  power  of  ordaining  Presbyters  in  the  hands  of 
fixed  BiahfjjKs."  He  says,  that  "  the  main  point  to  be  proved  is, 
that  Episcopacy  is  of  a/wstolical  institut.io7i.  For  if  it  be  shown 
that  Bishops  were  settled  in  the  Churches  of  Christ  by  them, 
it  will  be  easily  granted  that  so  considerable  a  business  as  that  of 
ordination  was  so  far  confined  to  them,  by  the  vjill  of  the  Ajioslles^ 
as  that  it  should  never  be  performed  without  their  inspection  and 
their  hands." 

Bishop  Hoadly  then  pi'oceeds  to  exhibit,  and  to  vindicate  the 
testimony  of  the  Fathers  in  favour  of  Episcopacy.  In  the  sub- 
sequent part  of  his  works  he  minutely  considers,  and,  with  great 
ability,  refutes  all  the  arguments  that  are  ever  used  against  Efiis- 
copal  and  in  favour  of  Presbyterian  ordination.  And  the  most 
strenuous  advocate  for  Episcopacy  would  be  at  a  loss  for  stronger 
arguments  than  those  urged  by  Bishop  Hoadly. 

Now,  that  a  man  who  maintains,  as  Bishop  Hoadly  does,  tliat 
the /iower  of  ordination  was  always  confined  to  single  persons^  su- 
perior to  Presbyters — that  all  the  instances  of  ordination  in  the 
New  Testament  prove,  that  the  power  of  ordination  was  confined 
to  single  persons.^  sujierior  to  Presbyters — that  all  the  rules  in  the 
JVew  Testament  concerning  the  ordinaticn  of  Presbyters^  are  di- 
rected to  persons  superior  to  these  Presbyters,  to  be  executed  by 
them  ONtr — and  that  Episcopacy  and, Episcopal  orcVniation  are  of 
afiostolical  institution  (these  are  the  very  v/ords  of  Bishop  Hoadly) — 
that  any  person  who  holds  such  language  in  regard  to  Episcopacy 
and  Episcopal  ordination,  should  yet  carry  so  far  the  spirit  ofcoiii- 
pliance,  as  to  concede  that  Episcopal  ordination  is  only  "  a  matter 
of  decency  and  regularilij,"  is. most  extraordinary  indeed :  yet  this 
concession  does  Bishop  Hoadly  make  in  the  veiy  treatise  from 
which  the  above  extracts  are  taken.  If  Episcopal  government  is 
to  be  placed  on  the  foundation  of  decency  and  regularity  only,  why 
may  there  not  be  as  much  decency  and  regularity  in  Presbyterian  go- 
vernment ?  Bishop  Hoadly  strenuously  maintains  that  the  power  of 
ordination  was  vested  by  tlie  Apostles  (who,  it  will  be  recollected, 
were  divinely  commissioned  to  establish  the  Priesthood,)  not  in  Pres- 
byters, but  in  the  superior  order  of  Bishops  alone.  If  tlien  the  Pres- 
byters were  to  exercise  this  power,  would  it  not  be  usui'pation  ; 
would  it  not  be  substituting  human  authority  in  the  Church  in  the 
place  of  divine  ?  If  the  power  of  ordination  was  confined  by  the 
Apostles  to  Bishops,  would  not  the  exercise  of  it  by  Presljyters 
(whatever  allowance  we  may  be  pleased  to  make  for  a  case  of  ine- 
vitable necessity)  be  a  mere  nullity  ?  No  principle  is  'more  plain 
than  that  a  man  cannot  lawfully  exercise  a  power  which  he  has  not 
lawfully  received.  If  Bishop  Hoadly,  by  these  concessions  which 
he  made,  and  which  appear  contradictory  to  his  other  principles, 


130        REMARKS  ON  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XXI. 

expected  to  induce  the  Dissenters  to  conform  to  the  Church,  havr 

greatly  was  he  disappointed  ? 

It  is  matter  indeed  of  astonishment  and  regret,  that  Bishop 
Hoadly  should  afterwards  become  the  champion  of  principles  tliat 
tended  not  only  to  subvert  all  authority  in  the  Church,  but  to  weaken 
many  of  her  fundamental  doctrines.  So  reprehensible  were  his  opi- 
nions esteemed,  that  the  lower  house  of  convocation  made  a  formal 
presentation  of  him  to  tlie  house  of  Bishops.  His  character  has 
been  thus  drawn  by  the  pen  of  an  able  Divine :  "  He  always  showed 
himself  a  much  sounder  politician  than  Divine  ;  he  daily  pronounced 
the  absolution  of  our  Rubrics  in  the  face  of  the  Church,  yet  told  the 
world,  through  the  press,  they  were  no  absolutions  at  all.  In  the 
same  place  he  daily  repeated  our  Creeds ;  yet,  in  several  parts 
of  his  works,  borrowed  arguments  from  the  writings  of  the  Sochii- 
ans  ;  which,  by  an  artful  turn,  he  so  levelled  at  the  doctrines  either 
contained  in,  or  necessarily  resulting  from  those  Creeds,  that  he 
who  reads  his  books  grows  heterodox  himself,  while  he  believes 
the  writer  to  be  orthodox.  In  his  most  celebrated  book,  in  which  he 
insinuates  what  he  would  have  us  take  to  be  the  ojihj  necessary  con-* 
ditions  on  which  the  favour  of  God  is  to  be  obtained,  he  dwells  on 
moral  conditions  only ;  and  by  slight  touches  and  double  expres- 
sions, eludes  the  necessity  of /azV/i  in  the  meritorious  dtath  of  Christ  o. 
He  published  a  discourse,  in  which,  among  other  things,  he  set 
forth,  that  it  matters  not  so  much  ndiat  our  religious  principles 
are,  as  it  does  that  we  be  sincere  in  them  ;  reducing  in  a  manner 
the  ivhole  duty  of  man  to  that  of  sincerity,  of  which  he  had  given 
the  world  so  bright  an  example  in  liis  cwn  practice  and  profes- 
sions." 

Christ  delegated  his  power  in  the  Church  to  his  Apostles.  "  All 
power  is  given  unto  rne  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  As  my  Father  sent 
iTie,  even  so  send  I  ynu."  Whatever  the  Apostles  did,  had  there- 
fore the  sanction  of  Christ.  What  thcij  did  as  the  i7if</iir eel  gover- 
nors of  tlie  Church,  was  virtually  done  by  him.  In  the  exercise  of 
the  power  thus  entrusted  to  them  to  establish  the  Church,  the 
Apostles,  in  all  the  Churches  of  which  we  have  any  account  in 
Scripture,  constituted  three  orders  of  the  Ministry,  and  gave  the 
power  of  ordination  to  the  first  order.  Here  is  more  than  mere 
apostolic /irac//c<f — it  is,  as  Bishop  Hoadly  maintains,  Ajiostolic  in- 
stitution. And  surely,  in  the  fundamental  point  of  the  orders  of  the 
Cliristian  Ministry,  Avhich  derives  all  its  efficacy  from  the  divine 
commission  v/hich  it  enjoys,  the  Apostolic  mode  of  conveying  this 
commission  is  binding.  Man  has  no  right  to  change  it,  at  what- 
ever time,  and  for  Avhatever  reasons  he  may  think  proper.  To 
say,  indeed,  that  it  is  unaltsrably  binding,  would  be  to  maintain 
what  cannot,  in  a  strict  sense,  be  predicated  of  any  divine  institu- 
tion. For  Gcd,  who  "  will  have  mercy,  and  not  sacrifice,"  Avill 
dispense  with  his  own  positive  institutions  when  it  is  not  in  the 
power  of  men  to  comply  with  them;  and  will,  we  trust,  pardon 
tliat  violation  of  them  which  is  founded  on  necessity,  and  on  iiivo- 
iutitarr;,  not  tvilful  error.  May  we  not  say  then,  in  the  words  of  the 
excellent  and  pious  Dean  Stanhopk,  "  This  spiritual  government 
being  instituted  by  Christ  himself,  cannot  be  abrogated,  ought  not 
to  be  changcdy  by  any  authority  less  sacred,  any  declaration  less 


AN  INQUIRER.  ISl 

positive  and  express,  than  that  by  M'liich  it  was  first  established. 
This,  we  have  reason  to  believe,  would  not  be  wanting,  were  such 
authority  mischievous  or  unnecessary :  But  for  any  man  to  pro- 
nounce it  so,  without  any  such  signification  from  its  author,  is  cer- 
tainly  most  impudent  sacrilege,  and  even  raging  impiety."*     Ed. 


For  the  Albany  Centinel. 
QUERIES. 


1  JlIoW  long  win  the  present  dispute  between  Episcopalians  and 
non-Episcopalians  continue  in  the  manner  in  which  it  is  at  present 
managed  ?  Could  not  the  writers  bring  what  they  have  to  say  into 
shorter  compass  ?  j        ,  • 

2.  What  weiglit  iu  the  controversy  should  be  allowed  to  the  testi- 
mony of  those  caUed  the  Fathers  ?  Is  their  practice  to  be  received 
as  the  true  interpretation  of  Scripture,  or  is  the  Scripture  alone  to 
be  the  guide  in  this  matter  ?t  .      ,         ,    ,       r 

3.  When  the  Fathers  contradict  one  another,  is  the  whole  ot 
their  testimony  on  this  point  to  be  rejected  ;  or  is  the  greatest  num- 
ber to  decide  ;  or  must  we  depend  principally  upon  those  who  were 
cotcmporaries  with  the  Apostles  ?i  If  the  last,  why  are  not  Clem- 
ens Romanus  and  Polycarp,  who  mention  only  two  orders  of  offi- 
cers in  the  Church,  more  frequently  quoted  ?|) 

4.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  expression,  "  Successors  ot  the 
Apostles  ?"  Docs  it  mean  that  the  Bishops  of  the  Romish  and  Epis- 

•  Stanhrpc's  Epist.  and  Gospels,  vol.  iv.  p.  224.  Ninth  Edition.     Eins. 

for  St.  Marl's  Day.  ,.,,,..  ,     •  - 

+  When  the  Scriptures  speak  or  three  orders  :n  the  Ministry,  and  givtf 
the  power  of  ordination  to  the  fir^t  order;  and  when  we  find  that  thfe 
primitn-  Fathers  L-ear  concurring  testimony  to  the  apostolic  institution  of 
these  orders,  we  have  all  the  evidenc:  that  the  case  will  admit.  We  rely 
on  the  Fathers  ■i.b  faithful  historiai:^,  as  credible  vhnesses  to  viatfers  qfjact. 
In  this  point  of  view  their  testimony  is  of  importance  to  ascertain  tlie 
true  sense  of  Scripture.  Errors  of  juc!i!;,r,ent  do  not  prove  them  to  be  in- 
competent  witne.sses  to  matters  of  fact.  "  Let  us  not  (to  use  the  language 
of  Bishop  Hoadly).  under  the  pretence  of  freedom  and  nnpartiahty,  cast  oit 
their  «»/wrja.'w;iC«;;r;if  testimony  about  a  matter  ofjacf  of  winch  they  arc 
the  onlv  proper  judges,"  [the  matter  of  fact  to  which  Bishop  Hoadly  al- 
ludes, is  the  prevalence  of  Episcopacy  from  the  Apostles'  times]  "  lest  wc 
destrov  all  historical  certainty,  and  forfeit  the  credit  even  of  the  most  sacred 
writim's  now  extant."     Hoadly's  Def.  of  Episc.  Ordm.  ch.  i.  ^/^. 

i  Th"  Fathers  do  not  contradict  one  another  on  the  subject  ot  i!.pisco- 
pacy.  Even  according  to  Bishop  Hoadly  their  tesdmony  on  this  pomt  is 
"  u'liiitrsal  and  concurrent."  ^  • 

11  Clemens  and  Polycarp  v.-erc  both  Bishops;  the  one  cf  Rome,  and  the 
other  of  Smyrna.  And  when  they  wore  themselves  Bishops,  docs  this  writer 
(who  the  rcider  will  recollect  is  tlie  author  of  Miscellanies)  niean  to  in  si- 
nuate,  that  they  bear  testimony  against  the  existence  of  this  order .    iitf. 


iS2  AN  INQUIRER. 

copal  Churches  succeeded  to  the  Apostolic  office,  or  only  that  tho 
Apostles  constituted  an  order  in  the  Church,  who  are  to  ordain, 
consecrate  churches,  and  rule  over  a  number  of  Ministers  and 
their  congregations,  be  they  more  or  less?* 

5.  What  idea  is  to  be  fixed  to  an  "  uninterrupted  succession," 
and  how  is  it  to  be  traced  ?!  \A'ho  were  the  seven  Jirst  Bishops  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  l\  V^Hiat  is  the  truth  respecting  the  successors 
of  Austin  the  Monk,  who  (as  is  said),  having  become  almost  en- 
tirely extinct,  by  far  the  greatest  part  of  the  Protestant  Bishops 
were  ordained  afterwards  by  Aidan  and  Finally  who  were  no  more 
than  Pi-esbyteis  ?\\ 

6.  Since  Paul  sent  for  Titus,  after  he  had  "  set  in  order  the  things 
that  were  wanting"  in  Crete,  to  come  to  Nicopolis,  took  him  along 
to  Rome,  and  then  sent  him  into  Dalmatia,  may  not  Titus  be  pi'o- 
perly  called  an  Evangelist^  or  a  travelling  rather  than  a  diocesan 
Bishop  ?§ 

*  This  writer  must  surely  know  that  Bishops  claim  to  be  "  successors  of 
the  Apostles"  only  in  their  ordinary  power  of  ordaining  to  the  Ministry 
and  governing  the  Church.  Ed. 

■]•  Dr.  Lathrop  (see  the  remarks  at  page  94,  &c.)  will  inform  this  gentle- 
man what  is  meant  by  "  uninterrupted  succession,"  and  how  it  is  to  be 
traced.  .  Ed. 

\  Though  there  may  be  some  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  particular  order 
in  which  the  seven  first  Bishops  of  Rome  succeeded  one  another,  no  primi- 
tive writers  ever  dispute  the  succession  of  Bishops  in  that  Church.     Ed. 

II  As  there  is  no  authority  stated  for  this  fact,  and  as  it  is  qualified  by 
the  expression,  "  as  is  said,"  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  notice  it.  Tlie 
learned  Collier,  on  the  authority  of  the  venerable  historian  of  England, 
Bede,  remarks,  "  The  Bishop  who  was  sent  to  King  Oswald  before  Ai- 
ban's  mission,  was  consecrated  ^t  Wye:  Aidan /i/cw/je  received  his  mvn 
consecration  there ;  where  it  appears  by  the  historian  there  were  more  Bi- 
shops  than  one.'"  He  likewise  remarks,  on  the  same  authority,  "  Aidan  was 
succeeded  in  his  Bishopric  by  Finan;  who  being  consecrated  dsid  sent  into 
England  by  the  Scots,  went  to  his  see  in  Holy-Island,  and  built  the  Cathe- 
dral there."    See  Collier's  Eccle.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  94,  95.  Ed. 

§  Let  Bishop  Hoadly  answer  this  inquiry,  and  silence  the  only  objec- 
tion which  anti-Episcopalians  can  bring  against  the  evident  superiority  of 
Timothy  and  Titus  over  the  other  orders  at  Ephesus  and  Crete,  that  they 
were  extraordinary  ojicers.  Evangelists,  travelling  Bishops.  "  It  is  of  small 
importance  whether  Tiinothy  and  Titus  were  Jixed  Bishops,  properly  so 
called,  or  not.  Perhaps  at  the  first  plantation  of  churches  there  was  no 
such  necessity  of  Jixed  Bishops  as  was  found  afterwards ;  or  perhaps  at 
first  the  superintendency  of  sucli  persons  as  T'/jHof/jv  and  Titus  was  thouglit 
requisite  in  many  different  churches,  us  their  several  needs  required.  If  so, 
their  office  certainly  was  the  same  in  all  churches  to  whicli  they  went ; 
and  ordination  a  work  reserved  lo  such  as  they  were,  persons  superior  to 
the  settled  Presbyters.  But  as  to  Ephesus  and  Crete,  it  is  manifest  that  Ti- 
inothy and  Titus  were  to  stay  witli  the  churches  there,  as  long  as  their 
presence  was  not  more  wanted  at  other  places:  And,  besides,  if  they  did 
leave  these  cluirches,  there  was  as  good  rea.son  that  they  should  return  to 
them  to  perform  the  same  oilice  of  ordination  when  there  was  again  occa- 
sion, as  there  was  at  first  why  they  should  be  sent  by  St.  Paul  io  th'At  pur- 
pose. Nor  is  there  the  least  footstep  in  all  antiquity,  as  far  as  it  hath  yet 
?pp€aj'ed,  of  an)  attempt  in  the  P,esl>ytert  of  Ephesia  of  Crete,  to  take  lo 


CORNELIUS  TO  CYPRIAN.  13S 

7.  What  was  the  particular  offence  given  to  Bishop  Scabuiy 
■which  induced  him  to  beat  so  unmercifully  non-Episcopalians  in  a 
pamphlet  inviting  them  to  union  ;  or,  as  the  author  of  "  A  Com- 
panion for  the  Festivals,"  Sec.  has  it,  to  "  come  into"  the  Episcopal 
Church  ? 

8.  Were  Timothy -and  Titus  successors  of  the  Apostles  during 
the  lives  of  the  Apostles,  or  after  their  decease  ?  If  the  former,  in 
■what  relation  did  the  Apostles  stand  ?  If  the  latter,  how  could  they 
be  Bishops  before  that  time,  since  Bishops  are  successors  of  the 
Apostles  ?  Would  it  not  be  more  modest  in  the  Bishops  of  the  Epis- 
copal Church  not  to  carry  their  succession  higher  than  Timothy 
and  Titus?* 

9.  If  we  can  prove  by  the  writingsof  the  Fathers,  merely  because 
they  relate  facts,  that  Bishops  are  a  superior  order  to  Presbyters, 
may  we  not  also  pro\  e,  from  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament, 
that  kingly  government  is  of  divine  right  ?'\ 

10.  In  case  a  dispute  ai'ose,  the  decision  of  which  depended  on 
the  date  of  the  baptism  of  the  children  who  were  first  baptised  by 
a  Lutheran  Minister,  and  baptised  again  by  an  Episcopal  Minister, 
■which  register  of  the  two  Churches  ought  to  be  admitted  as  pi'oof  ? 

11.  Did  the  Bishop  of  London  know  that  several  persons  whom  he 
ordained  as  Priests,  and  one  whom  he  ordained  as  a  Bishop,  had  no 
other  baptism  than  that  administered  by  Ministers  of  a  Presbyterian 
Church,  whose  administration  of  ordinances  is  held  by  the  Episco- 
palians in  the  United  States  to  be  "  nugatoiy  and  invalid  ?"| 

AN  INQUIRER. 


A  LETTER  FROM  CORNELIUS  TO  CYPRIAN. 

Dear  Brother, 

X  HAVE  attended,  with  much  interest,  to  the  controversy  which 
you  and  tlie  Layman  are  now  so  well  maintaining  against  the  writer 
of  Miscellanies  and  his  coadjutor,  respecting  the  ILpiscopal  govern- 
ment of  the  Christian  Church.  It  is  astonishing  to  l)ehold  the  con- 
fidence with  wliich  the  advocates  for  Presbyterian  parity  traverse 

themselves  the  njpces  appropriated  in  the  forcmentloned  Epistles,  to  a  supe- 
rior order  of  men."     Hoadly's  Def.  of  Epis.  eh.  i.  Ed. 

*  As  Timothy  and  Titus  v.'cre  commissioned  by  the  Apostles,  succeeding 
Bishops  derived  their  commission,  through  them,  from  the  A[)ostles.    Ed. 

f  Kingly  government  stood  nniong  the  jfetus  on  the  ground  of  dhvine  rigbt, 
because  it  was  instituted  by  God.  Episcupacy  among  Cliristians  stands  on 
divine  authority,  because  it  was  instituted  by  the  .ipostli..;,  who  were  di- 
vinely commisiioned  to  establish  the  orders  of  the  Priesthood.  Until  the  au- 
thor of  Miscellanies  can  prove  that  kingly  gnvernnient  was  prescribed 
to  Christians  as  well  as  the  yeivs,  his  insiduous  and  disingenuous  comparison 
between  it  and  Episcopacy  will  receive  the  indignation  it  desen-es.     Ed. 

^  I'his  writer  will,  on  this  point,  Hnd  satisfactory  information,  if  he  is 
disposed  to  seek  it,  in  the  note  on  hi&  Miseellanicii,  at  [>.  24,  Sic.         Ed. 


134  CORNELIUS  TO  CYPRIAN. 

the  same  ground  ft-om  Vvhich  they  luive  again  and  again  been  beaten 
by  the  champions  of  primitive  discii)line.  From  the  daysofOri- 
gen,  Celsus  and  other  infidels  ha\  e  brought  forward  objections  to 
the  triuh  of  Christ's  gospel.  Every  objection  has  been  fairly  obvi- 
ated ;  every  argument  has  been  completely  confuted  by  Origen,  and 
those  who  have  succeeded  him  in  the  good  fight  of  faith  ;  and  yet, 
Tom  Paine,  in  the  present  day,  will  write  with  unblushing  efFron- 
teiy  ;  as  if  the  truth  of  Cliristianity  had  never  been  maintained  in 
former  ages,  against  all  opposition ;  as  if  there  vvere  not  now  in  ex- 
istence a  Watson  to  expose  his  ignorance,  and  chastise  his  blas- 
phemy. Precisely  in  the  same  manner  acts  this  writer  of  Miscel- 
lanies. The  fact  is,  it  is  jtoo  apparent,  that  the  chief  aim  of  him 
and  his  abettors  is  not  to  search  for  truth,  but  to  increase  a  party. 
The  arguments  of  Potter  in  his  Treatise  on  Church  Go'vernmenty 
and  of  tilater  in  his  Original  Draught  of  the  Christian  Churchy  have 
never  been  answered,  and  I  will  venture  to  affirm,  never  can  be 
answered  in  the  way  of  dispassionate  reasoning ;  and  yet,  this  boast- 
ing Miscellanist  comes  forward  with  a  bold  front,  and  even  with 
triumphant  language,  as  if  the  cause  of  Episcopacy  were  com- 
pletely baffled  and  laid  low  in  the  dust. 

It  is  disgusting  to  every  ingenuous  mind  to  trace  him  and  others 
©f  the  same  derscription  through  all  their  arts  of  misrepresentation. 
Their  chief  skill  is  in  exciting  the  passions  of  the  people,  and  thus 
diverting  their  minds  from  a  calm  attention  to  the  merits  of  the 
case  in  dispute.  If  we  insi:-.t  upon  the  necessity  of  Ejiiscofial  ordi- 
nation, immediately  they  raise  a  clamour  about  High  Dutch  and 
Low  Dutch,  Presbyterian  and  Methodist;  and  all  parties  are  cal- 
led upon  to  unite  in  opposition  to  the  indolence  of  Episcopalians. 
Arid  is  it,  then,  insolent  to  teach  our  own  people  the  doctrines  of 
our  own  Church  ?  Is  this  a  question  which  is  to  be  decided  by 
numbers  ?  Even  if  numbei's  were  the  proper  criterion  by  which 
to  determine  the  dispute,  the  truth  is  evidently  on  our  side,  if  we 
take  into  view  the  whole  Christian  Church.  But,  supposing  this 
were  not  the  case,  does  truth  become  falsehood,  when  the  majo- 
rity happens  to  be  opposed  to  it  ?  In  the  institutions  of  civil  govern- 
ment., the  voice  of  the  majority  may  determine  what  is  right  and 
%Yhat  is  wrong ;  but  in  matters  of  religious  concern,  I  have  j'et  to 
learn  that  the  vox  /lofiufi  is  the  vox  l)ei.  It  was  said  by  them  of 
old  time,  follow  not  a  multitude  to  do  evil.  It  seems  to  be  the 
opinion  of  our  opponents,  that  the  multitude  can  never  do  evil,  and 
that  if  they  have  the  multitude  oji  t!)eir  side,  they  may  go  on  in 
perfect  security.  I  wonder  what  would  have  been  the  fate  of 
Christianity,  had  the  firit  preachers  of  the  gcv^pel  acted  upon  this 
Presbyterian  maxim.  What  shall  v/e  now  say  to  Mahometans  and 
Pagans  ?  The  disciples  of  Mahomet  arc  more  nuuierous  than  those 
of  Christ.  Is  Muhometanism  therefore  true,  and  Christianity 
false  ?  The  Pagans  are  more  numerous  than  even  the  followers  of 
Mahomet.  Are  we  therefore,  to  make  no  attempt  to  convert  them 
from  the  error  of  the  J  )•  ways  ?  St.  Paul  was  virulently  assailed  by  Jews 
;aid  Gentiles,  as  a  setter-forth  of  strange  gods.  When  he  was  at 
Ephesus,  the  Craftfimcn  of  the  Goddess  Diana  made  no  sinall  stir, 
and  filled  the  whole  cit;,  with  confusion,  alleging  that  the  Apostle's 
doctrine  led  to  the  despising  of  the  temple  and  destroying  the  magni-? 


CORMELIUS  TO  CYPRIAN.  15J 

licence  of  a  Deity  whom  all  Asia  and  the  world  worshipped.  But 
was  the  advocate  of  God's  truth  appalled  by  their  numbers,  or 
overborne  by  their  violence  ?  No ;  he  j^crsevered  through  evil 
report  and  good  report,  through  perils  by  sea  and  land,  among 
gentile  robl^ers  and  fa'ne  brethren^  Avho  called  themselves  Chri'j- 
tians  ;  and  truth,  which  is  mighty,  finally  prevailed  over  all  opposi- 
tion. Now,  in  order  to  excite  popular  resentment,  I  know  it  v/ill  be 
{iaid  I)y  our  adversaries,  that  I  am  making  the  advocates  for  Pres- 
byterian parity  no  better  than  rvlahnmetans  and  Pagans.  Be  it  re- 
membered, that  I  mean  no  such  tiling.  My  argument  is  simply 
this ;  when  a  proposition  of  great  moment  to  the  Christian  world  is 
held  forth  to  our  consideration,  it  is  our  bounden  duty  not  to  be 
swayed  by  the  numbers  vviio  have  already  decided  against  it ;  but 
dispassiona.tely  to  weigh  t!ie  arguments  whicii  are  adduced  in  sup- 
port of  it;  and  then  to  follow  the  hea\cnly  guidance  of  truth,  how- 
ever numerous  the  hosts  may  be  which  arc  set  in  array  against  us. 

Is  it  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  j)rimitive  Fathers  of  the 
Church  must  have  been  well  acquainted  with  the  mode  of  ecclesi- 
astical government  established  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles?  Now, 
their  testimony  is  universally  in  our  favoui".  What  course,  then, 
have  the  enemies  of  Episcopacy,  for  the  most  ])art,  pursued  ? 
Why,  they  have  endeavoured  by  every  art  of  misrepresentation  to 
invalidate  this  testimony  of  the  Fathers.  Ignatius  was  born  before 
the  death  of  St.  John.  SeA'en  of  his  Epistles  have  been  proved  bv 
Bishop  Pearson  to  be  genuine,  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  v^iiole 
learned  world.  In  these  Epistles  he  repeatedly  mentions  the  three 
orders  of  Bishops,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons,  and  speaks  of  ihe 
order  of  Bishops  as  necessaiy  in  the  coiistitution  of  every  C'aristiau 
Church.  All  this  has  been  done  ;  and  still,  the  Presbyteri;in  teachers 
mislead  the  people,  by  artfully  insinuating  tliat  none  of.  the  writings 
are  genuine  which  go  under  tlie  name  of  Ignatius.  Another  artful 
method  pursued  Ijy  our  opponents  is  to  collect  all  the  eiaors  into 
%vhich  the  Fathers  have  fallen,  with  respect  to  particular  points  of 
tloctrine;  to  paint  these  errors  in  the  blackest  colours;  and  when 
they  have  thus  prejudiced  the  minds  of  the  people  against  them, 
boldly  to  go  on  to  the  preposterous  cor.clusion,  that  the  testimony  of 
these  Fathers  is  not  to  i;e  regarded  when  they  stand  fyrth  as  v/it- 
nesses  to  a  matter  of  fact.  But  is  this  fair  dealing?  Mav  not  a 
man  of  sincerity  and  truth  be  liable  to  errors,  as  to  matters  of  opi- 
nion ;  and  still  be  a  true  witness,  as  to  things  which  he  has  seen  and 
iieard  ? 

Pr.rsuing  the  usual  mode  of  artful  misrepresentation,  our  Mis- 
cellanist  has  endeavoured  to  reprej;ent  Jerome  as  favouring  the 
Presbyterian  scheme  of  Church  government;  and  with  the  same 
spirit,  he  abuses  the  Cluirch  of  England  as  too  nearly  bordering  on 
Popery.  After  seeing  what  has  been  published  en  these  subjects,  if 
your  opponent  has  any  spark  of  modesty  remaining  in  his  bosom, 
lie  will  never  pvodnce  the  testimony  of  Jerome  in  sup])ort  of  jiis 
cause,  nor  will  he  dare  to  reproach  the  Church  of  England  as  in- 
clining to  the  errors  of  Popery.  The  fact  is,  that  the  Pope  of 
Rome  (as  is  evident  from  tiie  history  of  the  Council  of  Trent)  is  as 
great  an  enemy  to  genuine  7)rimitive  Episcopacy,  as  the  moit  vio- 
lent Presbyterian  can  be.    Knowing  the  Church  of  England  to  b& 


15G  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XXII. 

the  firmest  bulwai-k  of  the  Protestant  cause,  he  is  more  afraid  of 
her  than  of  any  other  reformed  Church ;  he  has  endeavoured  to 
weaken  and  confound  her  by  open  assaults,  and  by  insiduous  attempts 
to  sap  her  foundations  ;  and  among  other  arts  to  effect  his  purpose, 
he  has  employed  emissaries,  who  assumed  the  Presbyterian  puritan 
character,  and  went  about  England  in  the  time  of  Queen  Elizabeth, 
declaiming  against  established  liturgies  and  forms  of  prayer,  and 
clamouring  vehemently  for  a  farther  reformation.  And  are  the 
people  still  to  be  misled  by  their  teachers  boldly  asserting  or  art- 
fully insinuating  that  the  Church  of  England  bears  too  great  a  re- 
semblance to  that  of  Rome,  and  that  her  Daughter  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  of  this  country,  in  her  most  prominent  features, 
is  very  like  her  Mother  ? 

You  shall  hear  farther  from  me  on  this  subject ;  in  the  mean 
time,  I  remain  your  very  affectionate  friend, 

CORNELIUS.* 


J^hr  the  ~4lba7iy  Centinel, 
MISCELLANIES.    No.  XXII. 

T 

A  HOUGH  I  had  often  heard  of  Bishop  White's  pamphlet,  yet  I 
never  saw  it  until  lately.  The  copy  which  I  use  was  printed  in 
Philadelphia,  by  David  C.  Claypole',  1782.  The  plan  of  govern- 
ment proposed  by  the  Bishop  was  in  general  adopted ;  at  least  so 
far  as  respected  the  division  of  the  continent  into  larger  and  smaller 
districts  ;  but  that  part  which  related  to  ordination  was  omitted,  in 
consequence  .of  the  strong  prejudices  of  some.f  Of  this  the  Bishop 
was  aware  when  he  wrote.  "  To  depart,"  says  he,  "  from  Epis- 
copacy, would  be  giving  up  a  leading  characteristic  of  the  com- 
munion ;  Avhich,  however  indifferently  considered  as  to  divine  ap- 
pointment, might  be  productive  of  all  the  evils  generally  attending 
changes  of  this  sort."  Rather  than  to  run  any  risk  of  evils  which 
the  change  might  occasion,  it  was  determined  to  obtain  the  ordina- 
tion of  Bishops  from  the  Bishop  of  London  ;  as  this,  hoive-uer  indif- 
fereiithj  considered  as  to  divine  ajifiointmeyit,  would  comport  with 
certain  prejudices.  No  one  can  misunderstand  die  Bishop,  who 
reads  what  follows: 

"  It  cannot  be  denied,  that  some  writers  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land apply  very  strong  expressions  to  Episcopacy,  calling  it  a  divine 

*  The  foregoing  letter  was  sent  to  the  printers  of  the  Albany  Centinel, 
who,  from  a  wish  not  to  extend  the  controversy,  declined  inserting  it.  Tlie 
friends  of  E])iscopacy  will  regret  that  in  consequence  of  this  circumstance 
nootlier  j)rocluctions  of  this  writer  appear  in  tliis  controversy.  lUd. 

f  Episcopal  ordination  was  adliered  to,  not  from  "  the  strong  prejudices 
of  some,"  but  from  the  general  principles  of  Episcopalians.  The  plan  of 
the  pamphlet  was  founded  on  tlie  presumption  that  the  Episco]5al  succession 
cmdd  not  be  obtained.  As  soon  as  there  appeared  a  prospect  of  obtaining  it, 
Uishop  Wliite  was  among  the  first  to  prop'jse  stnd  lo  uiiitc  in  the  measures 
iliat  wfre  adopted  for  tlsat  purpose.  Kd. 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  XXIL  Uf 

appointment,  the  ordinance  of  Christ,  and  the  law  of  God,  and 
pronounce  it  to  be  of  divine  right.*  Yet,  in  reason  they  ouglit  to 
be  understood  as  asserting  it  to  be  binding,  wherever  it  can  conve- 
niently be  had  ;  not  that  law  and  gospc!  are  to  cease  rather  than 
Episcopacy."  The  Bishojj  shows  that  Mr.  Ilookerf  and  others 
clearly  make  this  distinction;  and  he  gives  the  words  of  Arch- 
bishop Whitgift,  quoted  by  Bishop  Stillingflcet,  as  asserting  that 
"  no  kind  of  government  is  expressed  in  the  word,  or  can  necessa- 
rily be  concluded  from  thence. "|  Tiie  last  paragraph  of  the  chap- 
ter is  full  and  explicit.     It  is  as  follows  : 

"  Now,  if  even  those  who  hold  Episcopacy  to  be  of  divine  right, 
conceive  the  obligation  to  it  to  be  not  binding  when  that  idea  would 
be  destructive  of  public  worship,  mucli  more  must  they  think  so, 
•who,  indeed,  venerate  and  prefer  that  form  as  the  most  ancient  and 
eligible  ;  but  without  any  idea  of  divine  right  in  the  case.  This  ihe 
author  believes  to  be  the  sentiment  of  the  great  body  of  Episcopa- 
lians in  America;  in  which  respect  they  have  in  their  favour  wn- 
gueationably  the  sense  of  the  Church  of  England ;  and,  an  he  believes^ 
the  opinions  of  her  most  distinguished  prelates  for  piety,  virtue,  and 
abilities." 

The  Bishop,  in  order  to  render  his  reasoning  the  more  perspi- 
cuous, and  so  as  not  possibly  to  be  misunderstood,  has  put  some 
words  in  italic.  Let  the  author  of  "  A  Companion  for  the  Festivals," 
&c.  and  all  his  abettors  read,  and  ponder  in  their  hearts.  Bishop 
White  "  belie-vefi  it  to  be  ihe  sentiment  of  the  great  body  of  lifnu- 
cofialians  in  jimerica"  that  Episcopacy  is  not  of  divine  right.  "  In 
nvhich  resfiect"  says  he,  "  they  have  in  their  favour  unquesTion- 
jBLr  the  sense  of  the  Church  of  England  ;  and,  as  he  believes^ 

•  This  is  a  true  representation  of  the  sentiments  of  the  generality  of  the 
eminent  Divines  of  the  Church  of  England  on  the  subject  of  Episcojjacy. 
There  is  no  inconsistency  between  these  sentiments,  and  the  exception 
jome  of  them  are  disposed  to  make  for  "  a  case  of  inevitable  necessity."  Ed, 

f  The  quotations  already  adduced  from  Hooker  prove,  beyond  all  doubt, 
that,  whatever  allowance  he  might  be  disj)osed  to  make  for  a  case  of"  in' 
evitable  necessity,"  he  expressly  maintained  that  E]jiscoj)acy  was  of  divi/ie 
appointment.  The  following  quotation  is  added  as  further  proof  on  this 
point:  "  I- may  securely,  therefore,  conclude,  there  are,  at  this  day,  in  the 
Church  of  England,  no  orher  than  the  same  degrees  of  ecclesiastical  or- 
ders, namely,  Bi^ho{)s,  Pritits,  and  Deacons,  which  had  their  be^iimin^ 
frani  Christ  and  his  blessed  Apostles  themselves."  Hooker's  Eccl.  Pol.  B.  5. 
Sec.  7».  Ed. 

\  Archbishop  Whitgift,  in  this  quotation,  uses  the  term  government  in 
the  sense  in  which  the  Puritans,  whom  he  opposed,  used  it,  as  including 
all  the  particulars  rf  discipline,  as  well  as  rites  and  ceremonies.  Seethe  note 
concerning  Whitgift,  at  p.  87,  88;  and  also  the  note  at  p.  107,  concerning 
the  sense  ii\  which  Hooker,  and  other  advocates  of  Episcopacy,  sometimes 
use  the  term  Church  gmernvieiU.  In  his  letter  to  Beiia,  Whitgift  uses 
language,  whicli  puts  beyond  all  cavil  his  sentiments  as  to  the  divine  and 
apostolical  institution  of  Episcopacy.  "  We  make  no  doubt,"  says  the 
Archbishop  in  this  letter,  "  but  that  the  Episcojjal  degree  which  we  bear, 
is  an  institution  apostolical  and  di-cine ,-  and  so  always  hath  been  held  by  a 
continual  course  of  times  from  the  Apostles  to  this  very  age  of  ours."  See 
Dr.  Chatidler's  Appeal  Dcfcudeu,  p  35.  Ed. 

T 


138  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XXII. 

the  ojxinion  of  her  most  distinguished  fir  elates  for  piety  ^  vir/ue,and 
abilities."*  Do  I  misrepresent  the  passage  ?  Who  is  so  hardy  as 
to  charge  me  with  this  ?  Reader,  judge  for  yourself.  The  passage 
is  written  in  the  28th  page  of  the  pamphlet. 

Will  any  ask,  Who  is  Bishop  White,  that  his  sentiments  should 
have  so  much  weight?  Let  me  ask  such  a  person,  Who  is  he  who 
contradicts  that  for  which  there  is  such  ample  proof?  The  Bishop 
believes  on  good  foundation.  He  gives  a  reason  for  his  faith.  He 
is  surrounded  with  a  cloud  of  witnesses.  He  has  produced  a  suffi- 
cient number,  and  he  could  easily  pi'oduce  many  others.  He  is^ 
notwithstanding,  a  true  Episcopalian  ;t  and  he  moves  with  dignity 

•  When  tlie  author  of  the  pamphlet  here  quoted  aisserts,  that  "  the  most 
distinguished  prelates  of  the  Church  of  England  venerate  and  prefer  Epis- 
copal government  as  the  most  ancient  and  eligible,  but  without  any  idea 
of  divine  right  in  the  case,"  it  is  presumed  he  must  mean  absolute  divine  right, 
without  any  allowance  for  a  case  of  "  inevitable  necessity ;"  for,  with  this  al- 
lowance. Hooker,  whom  the  author  of  this  pamphlet  professes  to  take  as  the 
guide  of  his  opinions,  expressly  maintains  that  "  the  institution  qf  Bishops'vs 
from  God,  the  Huly  Ghost  is  the  author  of  it."  That  a  departure  from  Episco- 
pacy in  a  case  of  necessity  is  allowable,  does  not  prove  that  Episcopacy  is 
not  a  divine  institution  :  for  all  will  admit  that  the  neglect  of  the  divine 
institutions  o?  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  may  be  allowable  in  cases  of 
necessity.  What  these  cases  of  necessity  are,  it  may  be  difficult  to  deter- 
mine ;  and  must  finally  be  left  to  the  decision  of  that  gracious  Being,  who^ 
wherever  he  finds  a  sincere  desire  and  endeavour  to  know  and  to  do  his 
will,  will  not  be  "  extreme  to  mark  what  is  done  amiss." 

Even  the  authorof  the  pamphlet  here  quoted,  who  only  justifies  a  departure 
from  Episcopacy  in  "  an  extraordinary  exigency,"  and  where  "  ordination  bj 
Bishops  cannot  be  had,"  holds  out  the  doctrine  that  "  the  Episcopal  poiver 
luas  lodged  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles  in  the  superior  order  of  the  Ministry.'* 
For  in  his  first  letter,  signed  An  Episcopalian,  which  will  be  found  in  the 
subsequent  pages,  he  assumes  as  his  oim,  the  Episcopalian  opinion  as  stated 
in  his  pamphlet.  And  this  opinion  is  in  the  following  words :  "  There 
having  been  an  Episcopal  poiver  lodged  by  ^esus  Christ  with  his  Apostles, 
and  by  them  exercised  generally  in  person,  but  sometimes  by  delegation, 
(as  in  the  instances  of  Timothy  and  Titus)  the  same  was  conveyed  by  them, 
before  their  decease,  to  one  pastor  in  each  Church,  which  generally  com- 
prehended all  the  Christians  in  a  city,  and  a  convenieftt  surrounding  dis' 
trict."  Ed. 

t  "  A  True  Episcopalian  !"  And  yet,  according  to  this  writer,  "  no  Pres- 
byterian could  argue  more  to  the  purpose."    [See  jMis.  No.  XX.] 

According  to  the  author  of  Miscellanies,  a  "  trus  Episcopalian"  \son^ 
who  places  Episcopacy,  not,  as  his  Church  does,  on  the  ground  of  "  Scrip- 
ture and  ancient  authors,"  but  merely  on  the  footing  of  expediency  and 
preference. 

According  to  this  author,  a  "  true  Episcopalian"  is  one,  who,  instead 
of  maintaining  with  his  Church  in  the  offices  of  ordination,  that  "  Almighty 
God,  by  his  Kcly  Spirit,  appointed  divers  orders  of  Ministers  in  the  Church," 
refers  their  authority  merely  to  Apostolic  practice. 

Accordmg  to  the  author  of  Miscellanies,  a"  true  Episcopalian"  is  one, 
who,  though  his  Church  acknowledges  none  as  "  lawful"  Ministers,  with 
tufficient  auth^ority,  but  those  who  have  "  Episcopal  consecration  or  ordina- 
tion," maintains  that  those  Presbyter ially  ordained  have  sufficient  autho- 
rity. 

If  thci;  bs  ths  principles  of  «^  "  true  Episcopalian,"  pray,  how  is  he  to 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  XXIL  13J 

■Hhd  usefulness  in  the  highest  order  in  his  Church.  He  venerates 
and prejers  her  form  of  government  as  the  most  ancient  and  eligU 
Lie,  Against  this,  Pi*esbyterians  have  no  objection.*  They  freely 
j'ield  to  others  that  privilege  which  they  claim  for  themselves. 
They  wish  to  stand  at  a  distance  from  all  bigotry  and  ccnsorious- 
«ess.  May  the  lawn  sleeves  of  Bishop  White  be  always  as  unsul- 
Iie«i  as  is  his  character !  May  those  on  whom  he  puts  his  hands,  in 
confirmation^  receive  divine  blessings !  May  those  whom  he  or- 
dains, with  his  Presbyters,  be  "ambassadors  for  Christ  1"  May 
the  churches  which  he  consecrates,  be  dwelling  places  of  the  Most 
High  !  May  he  preserve,  until  the  end  of  life,  that  estimation  in 
which  he  is  held  !  Finally,  may  he  be  approved  by  the  great  "  Shep- 
herd and  Bishop  of  our  souls !" 

As  he  does  nv)t  believe  Episcopacy  to  be  of  divine  right,  so  he 
gives  what  he  conceives  to  be  the  origin  of  its  order  of  Bishops, 
"  In  the  early  ages  of  the  Church,"  says  he,  "  it  was  customary  to 
debate  and  determine  in  a  general  concourse  of  all  Christians  in 
the  same  city;  among  whom  the  Bishop  was  no  more  than  presi- 
dent."! Again,  "The  original  of  the  order  of  Bishops  was  from 
the  Presbyters  choosing  one  from  among  themselves  to  be  a  stated 
president  in  their  assemblies,  in  the  second  or  third  century."^  For 
the  support  of  this  opinion  much  and  high  authority  can,  and  may 
hereafter  be  produced.  The  mode  is  perfectly  Presbyterian  to  choose 
a  president  for  a  time.  This  is  necessary  for  the  preservation  of 
order ;  but  still  he  has  no  superiority  of  power  farther  than  what 
arises  from  the  office  to  which  he  is  appointed.  He  is  stiil  a  Pres- 
byter. The  Presbyterians  call  him  Moderator  or  President ;  and 
they  may  call  him  Bishofi,  as  is  said  to  have  been  the  custom  in  the 
primitive  Church.  Had  Episcopalians  aimed  at  nothing  more,  had 
they  not  contended  for  a  distinct  and  permanent  order  in  the  Church 
superior  to  Presbyters,  as  being  of  divine  and  immutable  constitu- 
tion, and  perpetuated  by  uninterrupted  succession,  there  would 
have  been  no  controversy  with  them.  Then  wou'd  there  have 
been  a  reasona!)le  prospect  of  union  between  them  and  other  de- 
nominations. Now  the  other  denominations  are  obliged  to  stand  on 
their  own  defence. 

In  my  next  number  I  hope  to  finish  the  extacts  from  Bishop 
White's  pamphlet,  and  to  make  some  reflections  upon  the  whole* 

be  distinjjiiished  from  a  "  true  Presbyterian?"  Happily  the  character  of  !i 
"  true  Episaipalian"  is  not  to  be  determined  by  the  standard  of  the  author 
of  the  Miscellanies,  nor  the  opinions  of  Bishop  White,  to  be  ascertained 
by  his  representations.  Ed. 

*  And  yet  this  writer,  in  his  first  number,  asserted,  that  "  the  classical 
or  Presbyterial  form  of  Church  government  is  the  true  and  onlv  one  which 
Christ  prescribed  in  his  word."  How  then  can  Episcopal  governnient  be 
the  most  ancient  and  eligible  ?  Ed. 

t  But  may  not  the  Bishop,  in  addition  to  t\\i%  povier  of  presiding,  have 
possessed  the  power  of  ordination,  8cc.  ?  Does  the  author  of  the  pamphlet 
assert,  that  he  liad  not  the  c.vclusivc  power  of  ordaining-  to  the  Ministry  !  Ed. 

\  The  author  of  Miscellanies  here  attribufes  to  the  authjr  of  the  pam- 
phlet what  is  not  fjis  opinion  but  the  opinion  of  certain  Dissenters  whom  he 
had  quoted,  (referring  to  Ncal's  history  as  his  authority)  called  the  "  Smec- 
tymnuan  Divines!"  •  Kd. 


140  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XXIL 

At  present  I  shall  conclude  with  an  extract  from  "  A  Disccursd 
of  Religion,"  by  Sir  Mathcw  Hale,  Lord  Chief  Justice  of  England. 

*'  That  ecclesiastical  government,"  says  this  great  and  good  man, 
*'  is  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  religion,  is  evident  to  any 
reasonable  and  considerate  man  ;  and  that  the  Episcopal  govern- 
ment constituted  in  England,  is  a  most  excellent  form  of  ecclesias- 
tical government,  and  exceeds  all  other  forms  of  ecclesiastical  go- 
vernment, may  be  easily  evinced ;  and  that  it  is  the  best  adapted  to 
the  civil  government  in  this  kingdom,  is  visible  to  any  intelligent 
person  ;  and  yet  I  do  not  think  that  the  essence  of  Christian  religion 
ponsists  in  this  or  any  other  particular  form  of  government.* 
A  man  may  be  a  good  and  excellent  Christian  under  this  or  any 
other  form  of  ecclesiastical  government ;  nay,  in  such  places  where 
possibly  there  is  no  settled  form  of  ecclesiastical  government  esta- 
blished. 

"  But  if  we  observe  many  persons  in  the  world,  we  shall  fin<} 
some  highly  devoted  to  this  or  that  particular  form  of  government, 
as  if  all  the  weight  of  the  Christian  i-eligion  lay  in  it :  though  the  wise 
and  sober  sort  of  conformists  know  and  profess  this,  yet  there  be  some 
rash  people  that  will  presently  unchurch  all  the  reformed  Churches 
beyond  the  seas  which  are  not  under  Episcopal  government,  f 
That  if  they  see  a  man,  otherwise  of  orthodox  principles,  of  a  pious 
and  religious  life,  yet  if  scrupling  some  points  of  ecclesiastical  go- 
vernment, though  peaceable,  they  Avill  esteem  him  little  better  than 
a  heathen  or  publican,  a  schismatic,  heretic,  and  what  not :  on  the 
other  side,  if  they  see  a  man  of  great  fervour  in  asserting  the  ec- 
clesiastical government,  observant  of  external  ceremonies,  though 
otherwise  of  a  loose  and  dissolute  life,  yet  they  will  be  ready  to  applaud 
him  with  the  style  of  a  son  of  the  Church,  and,  upon  that  account, 
overlook  the  miscari-iages  of  his  life,  as  if  the  essence  and  life  of 
(Christian  religion  lay  in  the  bare  asserting  of  the  form  of  ecclesias- 

*  Who  has  ever  asserted  that  "  the  cMence  of  the  Christian  religion  con- 
sists in  this  or  any  other  particular  form  of  government  ?"  May  not  Epis- 
copacy be  o£  divine  appointment,  and  binding  upon  Christians,  without  being 
the  essence  of  religion  ?  Ed. 

•{•  The''  rash  people"  to  whom  Chief  Justice  Hale  alludes,  and  who,  rank- 
ing among  the  brightest  luminaries  of  the  English  Church,  were  surely  not 
interior  to  him  in  talents,  learning,  and  piety,  do  not  imchitrch  any  of  their 
fellow  Christians.  Episcopacy,  till  the  time  of  Calvin,  was  the  uniform  and 
sacred  characteristic  of  the  Christian  Church.  As  far  then  as  Episcopacy 
is  a  characteristic  of  the  Christian  Church,  those  denominations  who  have 
departed  from  it  have  unchurched  themselves.  Let  us  hear  again  what  tha 
•'  judicious  Hooker,"  who,  some  anti-Episcopalians  would  have  us  be- 
lieve, gives  up  the  necessity  of  Episcopacy  to  a  true  and /)er/ec(  Church — let 
us  hear  v/hat  he  says  on  this  point.  Speaking  of  the  order  of  Bishops,  he 
observes,  (Eccle.  Pol.  B.vii.  Sec.  5.)  "  Nor  was  this  order  peculiar  unto 
some  Jew  Churches,  hut  ihc  ivhole 'world  universally  became  subject  there- 
unto ;  insomuch  as  they  did  not  account  it  to  be  a  Church  ivhich  •aras  not  sub- 
ject unto  a  Bishop.  It  was  the  general  received  persuasion  of  the  ancient 
Christian  world,  that  Ecclesia  est  in  Episcopo,  the  outivard Being  of  a. 
Church,  consisted  in  the  having  of  a  Bishop."  It  is  to  be  presumed  that  the 
general  received  opinion  of  the  ancient  Christian  world  w'lW  be  considered  as  of 
at  least  as  much  uulhority  as  the  opinion  of  Lord  Chief  Justice  Hale.  Ed, 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  XXIL  141 

tkal  government."*   [Hale's  Contemplations,  vol.  i.  p.  448.  Edmb. 
edit.] 

I  have  been  charged  with  being  "  personal"  and  "  vindictive ;" 
but  I  have  written  nothing  which  can  be  called  more  personal  and 
severe  than  this:  "  Wise  and  sober  sort  of  conformists ;"  that  is, 
English  Episcopalians.  '■'■Home  rash /ico/ile  ;'  such  as  the  author 
of  "  A  Companion  for  the  Festivals,"  Sec.  and  his  followers.  "  Un- 
church all  the  reformed  Churches  which  are  not  under  E/iiscoJiaL 
t(overnment;  "  just  as  the  Episcopal  Priests  in  this  State  have  done. 
Bishop  White  shall  be  my  advocate,  and  1  will  have  the  cause  tried 
before  Lord  Cluef  Justice  Hale. f 


•  Let  these  remarks  fall  on  those  who  deserve  them.  Every  true  "  sou 
of  the  Churcli"  will  disclaim  their  ji«sf/i-c,  and  will  question  their  im<x/<»;vi- 
tiot!  and  charity.  No  jjcrson  can  be  guilty  of  the  gross  absurdity  of  main- 
taining that  the  observation  of  "  external  ceremonies"  will  atone  for  a 
"  luote  and  dissolute  if e."  But  does  Cliief  Justice  Hale,  does  the  Miscel- 
laneous asthor  mean  to  assert,  that  a  good  life  will  save  a  man  who  neglect* 
those  positive  institutions  which  God  has  established  as  the  means  of  grace, 
and  ranked  among  the  conditions  of  salvation  ? 

This  improper  and  invidious  comparison  between  the  essentials  and  cir- 
eutnstanticds  of  the  Church,  is  often  made  by  the  opponents  of  Episcopacy. 
Dr.  Cam])bfll  has  urged  it  in  his  lectures,  and  is  thus  replied  to  by  Daube- 
KY  :  "  AH  true  religion,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  has  its  source  in  Reve- 
lation. To  that  same  source,  the  essentials,  and,  for  the  inost  part,  the 
eircnmstantials  of  religion  are  to  be  traced  up.  Considered  in  this  light,  it 
is  our  duty  to  hold  them  in  equal  reverence.  To  make  use  of  the  observa- 
tion of  the  judicious  Butler — '  As  it  is  one  of  the  peculiar  weaknesses  of  hu- 
man nature,  when,  upon  a  comparison  of  two  tilings,  one  is  found  to  be 
oi greater  importance  than  the  other,  to  consider  this  other  as  of  scarce  fw;r 
importance  at  all ;  it  is  highly  necessary  that  we  remind  ourselves,  ho\r 
great  jjresumption  it  is,  to  make  light  of  a7iy  institutions  of  divine  appoint- 
ment; t.h'Sii  ova  obligatiom  to  obey  all  God's  commands  whatever,  are  ni- 
tolute  and  indispensable ;  and  that  commands  nxtntXy  positive,  admitted  to  be 
from  him,  lay  us  under  a  moral  obligation  to  obey  them  ;  an  obligation 
moral  in  the  strictest  and  most  proper  sense  I'  Butler's  Analogy,  p.  270." 
See  Daubeny's  Prelim.  Dis.  to  his  Discourses  on  the  connection  between 
the  Old  and  New  Testament,  p.  142,  &.c.  Ed. 

•j-  If  Bishop  Wliite  is  to  be  tiie  advocate  of  the  author  of  the  Miscel- 
lanies, he  must  give  up  the  position  which  he  repeatedly  advances,  that 
"  there  is  no  pre-eminence  of  one  Minister  above  anotiier ;  that  all  are 
equals."  For  Bishop  \Vhite,  in  a  late  sermon  before  the  General  Conven- 
tion, maintains,  that  the  Apostles  instituted  an  order  of  Ministers,  with  a 
supereminent  tomtnission;  that  this  commission  has  been  handed  down 
to  the  present  times  ;  and  that  this  is  the  "  originally  constituted  order."  If 
Lord  Chief  Justice  Hale  is  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  the  author  of  Miscella- 
nies, he  will  be  reproved  for  his  assertion,  that  "  Diocesan  Episcopacy  is 
corrupt  and  injurious."  [See  his  Misc.  No.  10.]  For  Lord  Chief  Justice 
Hale,  in  the  very  extract  above  quoted  by  the  author  of  Miscellanies,  asserts, 
"  that  the  Episcopal  government,  constituted  in  England,  is  a  most  excellent 
form  of  government,  and  exceeds  all  other  forms  of  eccK'siastical  goverii- 
vient .'"  At  the  tribunal  which  the  author  of  Misci,llanlc'bhaii  himself  cho- 
sen, kc  stands  condemned,  Ed. 


(    142    ) 

For  the  Albany  CentineU 

MORE  QUERIES. 

1.  An  giving  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Doddridge  on  the  passage  in  Acts 
xiii.  3,  respecting  the  ordination  of  Paul  and  Barnabas,  why  did 
the  "  Layman"  omit  these  words  of  the  Doctor,  in  his  paraphrase; 
"  In  token  of  their  designation  to  that  extraordinary  office?"* 
Where  does  the  Doctor  say  that  "  it  was  ?io  ordination  at  all?"\ 
Admitting  that  "  they  were  not  now  invested  with  the  apostolic 
office  by  these  iyiferior  Ministers^"  as  I  think  every  judicious  com- 
mentator will  admit,  yet  may  not  a  strong  inference  be  drawn  in 
favour  of  Presbytei'ian  ordination  ?  Does  not  the  "  Layman"  him- 
self yield  the  point,  so  far  as  can  be  expected,  when  he  speaks  of 
this  and  of  the  passage,  in  the  Epistle  to  Timothy,  as  of  "  doubtful 
construction'^ ''%  Does  not  Bishop  Pearce  convey  the  same  idea  as 
Dr.  Doddridge,  when  he  adds,  after  the  words  "  whereunto  I  have 
called  them,"  "  that  is.  for  preaching  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles?" 
When  persons  are  set  apart  for  a  particular  work,  in  a  particular 
manner,  is  it  not  a  fair  inference,  that  they  are  to  be  thus  set  apai't 
for  the  work  of  the  ministry  in  general  ?|| 

2.  On  what  authority  does  a  writer,  under  the  signature  of  "  Cy- 
prian," intimate  that  Epaphroditus  was  an  Ajiostle  .?§     I  have 

•  The  Layman  was  not  guilty  of  unfair  quotation,  as  this  writer  insi- 
nuates. He  quoted  the  note  of  Dr.  Doddridge  on  tlie  passage  ;  the  words 
quoted  by  this  writer  are  in  the  paraphrase.  He  could  have  had  no  reason 
for  keeping  these  words  out  of  view,  for  they  only  assert,  what  he  main- 
tains, that  Paul,  Barnabas,  &c.  did  not  then  receive  the  ordinary  office  of 
the  ministry,  but  were  designated  to  the  "  extraordinary  office"  of  preacli- 
ing  the  Gospel  to  "  several  countries  of  Asia."  Ed. 

\  Let  the  candid  reader  peruse  the  note  of  Dr.  Doddridge  on  this  pas- 
sage, v.'hich  is  given  entire  by  tlie  Layman  in  his  6th  No.  and  then  deter- 
mine whether  Dr.  Doddridge  does  not  disclaim  the  idea  that  this  was  an 
ordination  to  the  worh  of  the  viinistry.  Ed. 

^  Here  we  discover  the  characteristic  candour  of  the  author  of  Miscel- 
lanies. The  Layman,  willing  to  concede  the  utmost  to  the  opponents  of 
Episcopacy,  states  ;  that  "  in  respect  to  these  passages,  the  utviost  that 
can  be  contended  for,  is  that  they  are  disputable  passages."  And  then  in- 
quii'es,  "  Is  it  correct  or  safe  to  build  up  a  mode  of  ordinatici".  unknoxvn  to 
the  Church  for  1500  years,  and  expressly  contradicted  by  the  constant  ex- 
ercise of  the  power  of  commissioning,  by  an  order  of  men  superior  to 
the  Elders  of  Ephesus,  upon  two  cases  of  doubtful  construction?"  And  this, 
to  be  sure,  is  yielding  the  point !  What  must  a  cause  be  that  is  suppoi-ted  by 
such  pitiful  sophistry  !  Ed. 

II  Tliat  is,  a  solemn  commendation  of  those,  who  are  already  Ministers,  to 
the  grace  cf  God,  for  the  discharge  of  their  ministry  in  a. pariic:dar  district, 
5s  proof  of  the  mode  by  wiiich  they  originally  received  the  ministerial  com- 
mission. Ed. 

§  He  intimated  it  on  the  authority  of  St.  Jerome,  which  he  supposed 
would  be  decisive  with  tliose  wlio,  on  some  occasions,  are  disposed  to  con- 
sider .S'f.  yerome  as  an  oracle ;  and  because  Ej)aphroditus  was  styled  ''  an  Apes- 
lie"  by  St.  Paul.  On  the  authority  of  the  primitive  writers,  Hoolver  as- 
serts, "they  whom  we  ?ji;w  call  Bishops,  were  ustially  termed  atthe//vse 


AN  INQUIRER.  J43 

Ikeartl  of  Matthias  being  "  numbered  with  the  eleven  Apostles  ;'* 
and  of  Paul  being  "  called  to  be  an  Apostle  ;"  but  I  have  never 
found  such  a  commission  for  Epaphroditus.  It  is  true  that  in  Phil.  ii. 
25,  he  is  called  "  humcon  apostolon,"  properly  translated  your  mes- 
senger ;  but  I  never  knew  that  his  being  employed  as  a  messenger 
to  carry  the  churches'  alms  to  Paul  entitled  him  to  a  rank  with  Paul 
himself.  If  this  be  so,  may  not  John  Lelwid,  who  escorted  the 
mammoth  cheese  to  Mr.  Jefferson,  be  also  called  an  Apostle  ? 

3.  Do  the  Episcopal  Priests  expect  to  "  be  heard  for  their  much 
speaking?"  Or  do  they  intend  to  v/rite  a  folio  as  large  as  "  Caryl 
on  Job,"  which  would  require  twice  the  patience  of  Job  to  read  ? 

4.  How  many  Bishops  does  "  Cyprian"  think  he  can  muster  in 
the  two  first  centuries,  beginning  with  Timothy  and  Titus,  whona 
he  will  fix,  the  one  at  Ephesus,  and  the  other  at  Crete,  whether 
the  Apostle  Paul  will  or  not  ?  Since  he  so  freely  quotes  the  Fathers 
now,  in  his  arguments  from  scripture,  what  will  be  left  for  them  to 
say  when  he  expressly  calls  upon  them  ?  Had  he  not  better  confine 
himself  to  one  thing  at  a  time  ? 

5.  Would  it  not  seem  that  the  Church  of  England,  in  protesting 
against  the  Pope's  supremacy,  had  not  protested  against  his  infaUi~ 
bility  ?  Or  rather,  does  it  not  seem  as  if  she  had  transferred  both 
to  herself?  Is  not  the  conduct  of  certain  Episcopalians  in  this  State, 
in  unchurching  all  who  do  not  belong  to  their  sect,  and  who  do  not 
believe  as  they  believe,  as  to  the  order,  power,  and  succession  of 
Bishops,  to  set  themselves  up  to  be  both  su/ireme  and  hifallible?* 

6.  VVhat  do  Episcopalians  mean  when  they  speak  of  some 
churches  having  Presbyterian  ordination  through  necessity  ?\  Can 
none  of  the  English  Bishops  be  spared  to  cross  the  Tweed  into  Scot- 
land, or  to  take  a  tour  into  foreign  countries,  to  "  set  in  order  the 
things  that  are  wanting?"  Were  the  Presbyters  to  come  to  them, 
Avould  they  not  perform  the  same  kind  office  which  they  performed 
for  Americans  ?  If  there  be  real  necessity  and  not  choice^  how  is 
it  possible  then  to  keep  the  succession  uni7iterru/Ued?\ 

AN  INQUIRER. 

Apostles,  and  so  did  carry  their  "very  names  in  whose  rooms  of  spiritual 
eiit/jority  t/jey  succeeded. ''     Eccl.  Pol.  B.  7.  Sec.  4.  Ed. 

*  This  writer  must  Dj^ain  be  told,  that  "  certain  Episcopalians  in  this 
State"  set  up  no  claims  in  regai^d  to  the  "  order,  power,  and  succession  of 
Bishops,"  which  we/e  not  avowed  by  the  Church  universal  for  \5iM)  years. 
The  constant  attempts  of  the  author  of  Miscellanies  to  involve  the  Episco- 
palians in  the  odium  excited  against  Roman  Catholics  are  equally  unfounded 
and  ungenerous.  An  honest  dis])ufant,  and  above  all,  a  conscientious  in- 
quirer after  truth,  should  surely  be  ashamed  of  these  arts.  Ed. 

t  EpisQopalians  have  never  made  this  assertion.  They  have  only  con- 
tended that  the  pica  of  necessity  is  the  only  plea,  in  the  opinion  of  many 
celebrated  advocates  of  Ejjiscopacy,  which  can  justify  a  departure  from 
Episcopacy  ;  and  that  Calvin  and  others  made  this  pica  in  the  first  instance 
as  a  justification  of  their  departure  iVom  it.  EJ. 

^  The  succc-isiun  is  not  interrupted  by  any  particular  Church  departing 
from  Episcopacy  It  could  only  be  interrupted  by  a  total  dejiarture  from 
Episcopacy  throughout  tlie  universal  Church.  The  succession  is  preserved 
in  the  order  of  bishop.^;  and  uii  long  as  aii)  of  this  order  remains,  the  sue- 
» f  iiion  is  n&t  interrupttd.  Kd. 


Wj 


(     144     ) 

For  the  Albany  Centinel, 
CYPRIAN.    No.  V. 


E  have  now  seen  the  evidence  which  we  derive  from  scripture 
in  support  of  the  clainns  of  our  order  of  Bishops.  It  appears  to  me 
that  this  evidence  alone  is  perfectly  satisfactory. 

As  we  advance,  however,  with  the  Church  in  her  progress,  and 
examine  the  writings  of  the  early  Fathers,  our  evidence  accumu- 
lates at  every  step.  At  a  very  early  period,  it  is  placed  beyond  all 
possible  controversy,  that  this  form  of  government  was  established 
in  the  Chureh. 

And  here  let  me  appeal  to  the  common  sense  of  every  unprejudic- 
ed reader,  to  bear  witness  to  the  truth  of  the  foUovving  proposition* 

If  we  had  only  obscure  hints  given  us  in  scripture  of  the  institu- 
tion of  this  form  of  government  by  the  Apostles,  and  if  at  a  very 
early  period — as  soon  as  any  distinct  mention  is  at  all  made  of  the 
subject,  this  appears  to  be  the  only  form  of  government  existing  in  the 
Chui'ch,  have  we  not  the  strongest  possible  presumption,  have  we 
not  absolute  demonstration,  that  it  was  of  Apostolic  original  ?  Who 
were  so  likely  to  be  acquainted  with  the  intentions,  with  the  prac- 
tices, with  the  institutions  of  the  Apostles,  as  their  immediate  suc- 
cessoi^s  ?  If,  t!\en,  we  should  admit  for  a  moment  (and  really  it  is 
almost  too  great  an  outrage  against  sound  reasoning,  tobe  admitted 
even  for  a  moment)  ;  I  say,  if  we  should  admit,  for  the  sake  of  argu- 
ment, that  "  the  Classical  or  Presbyterial  form  of  Church  govern- 
ment was  instituted  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles,"  at  what  period 
was  the  Efiiscofial  introduced  ?  When  did  this  monstrous  innovation 
upon  primitive  oixler  find  its  way  into  the  Church  of  Christ  ?  At 
what  period  did  the  Bishops  make  the  bold  and  successful  attempt 
of  exalting  themselves  into  "  Lords  in  God's  heritage  ?"  These  are 
questions  which  the  advocates  of  parity  have  never  yet  been  able  to 
answer,  which  they  never  will  be  able  to  answer.  They  tell  us,  in- 
deed, of  a  change  that  must  have  taken  place  at  an  early  period, 
that  Episcopacy  is  a  corrupt  innovation ;  but  they  can  produce  no 
proof  on  which  to  ground  these  bold  assertions.  They  are  counte- 
nanced, in  these  assertions,  by  none  of  the  records  of  these  times 
that  have  been  transmitted  to  us.  It  is  a  mere  conjecture,  a  crea- 
ture of  the  imagination.  It  is  conjectured  that  this  change  took 
place  immediately  after  the  ApostoHc  age.  It  must  be  that  this 
change  took  place,  or  Presbyterian  principles  cannot  be  maintained. 
Thus  a  mere  conjecture  on  their  part  is  to  overbalance  the  most 
solid  and  substantial /iroo/"  on  ours.  In  order  to  follow  these  xrial 
adventurers  in  their  excursions,  we  are  to  desert  the  broad  and  so- 
litl  botton)  of  facts,  and  launch  into  the  regions  of  hypothesis  and 
uncertainty. 

We  say,  then,  and  I  hope  it  will  be  well  remembered,  that  from 
the  earlieat  information  which  is  given  us  concerning  the  institution* 
and  usages  of  tlie  Christian  Church,  it  undeniably  appears,  that 
there  existed  in  it  the  tliree  distinct  orders  of  Bishops,  Presbyters, 
and  Deacon*;.  Wc  sny,  that  this  circumstance  amounts  to  demon- 
btrative  evidence,    tliat  these  three  orders  were  of  divine  institu- 


CYPRIAN.    No.  V.  145 

tion — were  of  Apostolic  appointment.  And  here,  moreover,  let  it 
be  remarked,  that  it  is  not  incumbent  upon  us  to  prove  that  Episco- 
pacy was  not  an  innovation  upon  the  primitive  establishment.  The 
presumption  operates  entirely  in  our  favour.  The  burthen  of  proof 
on  this  point  lies  upon  them.  They  are  required  to  show  that  there 
is  any  foundation  for  llie  hypotlicbis  that  the  ^yovernment  of  Christ's 
Church  underwent  any  such  change  at  this  early  period. 

But  we  do  not  stop  here.  We  nuiintain  that  to  suppose  the  form 
of  government  in  the  Cliurch  of  Christ  to  have  been  so  fundamentally 
altered  at  this  time,  is  the  wildest  imajjination  that  ever  entered  into 
the  head  of  man.  Let  us  contemplate  the  circumstances  of  this 
case. 

It  is  su/ifiosed  that  Christ  and  lais  Apostles  instituted  originally 
but  one  oidcr  of  Ministers  in  his  Ciiurch,  equal  in  dignity  and  au-i 
thority.  It  is  imagined^  that  immediately  after  their  death,  a 
number  of  aspiring  individuals  abolished  this  primitive  arrange- 
ment, elevated  themselves  to  supreme  aut'iority  in  the  Church  of 
Christ.  Concerning  the  thiK  at  which  this  innovation  was  effected, 
the  advocates  of  Presbyterian  ism  are  by  no  means  agreed.  The 
most  learned  among  them,  however,  admit  that  it  must  have  taken 
place  before  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  shrinx.  forty  orjifty 
years  after  the  times  of  the  jifostlcs,  i?LONDEi,  allows  that  Epis- 
copacy was  the  established  government  of  tlie  Church  williin  forty 
years  after  the  Apostolic  age.  Bochaht  assigns  as  the  period  of 
its  origin,  the  age  that  immediately  succeeded  the  Apostles.  He 
says  \l-dso%Qy  fiuulo l^oHt  Afiostolos^.  Salmasius  even  allows  that 
this  govcrnrr'rnt  prevailed  in  the  Church  before  the  death  of  the 
last  of  the  Apostles.  And,  in  fact,  this  is  the  only  period  at  which 
it  can  be  suppo^,cd  to  have  originated  with  any  degree  of  plausiJji- 
lity.  It  shall  be  my  task  to  show  that  it  \i  altogether  improbable, 
that  it  is  almost  ivi/wssiblc,  that  any  iimovation  upon  primitive  order 
and  discipline  could  have  been  euectuy.tcd  at  this  early  period. 

Within  forty  years  after  the  times  of  the  Apostles,  we  are  told, 
that  the  Bishops,  by  a  bold  and  F,ucces?ful  effort,  trampled  upon 
the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  Clergy,  and  elevated  themselves  to 
the  chair  of  supreme  authority  !  What !  Those  who  were  the  im- 
mediate successors  of  the  Apostles — those  who  had  received  from 
these  miraculous  men  the  words  of  eternal  truth,  the  institutions  of 
God's  own  appointment — so  soon  forget  the  reverence  and  duty 
which  they  owed  them — so  soon,  with  a  rash  and  impious  hand,  strike 
away  the  foundation  of  those  venerable  structures  which  they  had 
erected  !  Would  they  not  permit  the  Apostles  to  be  cold  in  their 
graves  before  they  began  to  undermine  and  demolish  their  sacred 
establishments  ?  Would  such  iniquitous  proceedings  have  been  pos- 
sible with  men  who  exhibited,  on  all  occasions,  the  warmest  attach-^ 
rnent  to  their  Saviour  and  to  all  his  institutions  ?  Will  it  be  ima- 
gined that  the  good  Ignatius,  tlie  venerable  Bishop  ofAntioch, 
he  who  triumphantly  avowed  that  he  disregarded  the  pains  of  mar- 
tyrdom, so  that  he  could  but  attjiin  to  the  presence  of  Jesus  Christ- 
will  it  be  imagined  that  he  entered  into  a  conspiracy  to  overthrow 
that  government  which  his  Saviour  had  established  in  his  C^  urch  ? 
Would  the  illustrious  Polycarp,  the  pride  an<l  ornament  of  the 
Churches  of  Asia,  have  engaged  in  the  execution  of  so  foul  an  en-> 

U 


145  CYPRIAN.    No.  V. 

tei-prize-^hc,  who,  when  commanded  to  Iilaspheme  Christ,  ex* 
claimed,  "  Four-score  and  six  years  have  I  served  him,  and  he  ne-' 
ver  did  me  any  harm  ;  how,  then,  shall  I  blaspheme  my  King  andl 
my  Saviour?"  In  short,  can  all  the  pious  Fathers  that  succeeded 
these,  be  supposed  to  have  co-operated  in  perfecting  the  atrocious' 
work  which  they  had  begun  ?  These  things  will  not  be  credited. 

But  even  supposing  that  these  pious  men,  whose  meek  and  una- 
spiring temper  renders  it  altogether  incredible  that  they  made  any 
such  sacrilegious  attempt,  were  inclined  to  obtain  this  pre-emi- 
nence in  the  Church  ;  can  it  be  imagined,  that  the  remaining  Pres- 
byters would  have  witnessed ih^se.  d-dringnsurfiations  M'ith  indiffer- 
ence? Would  they  have  made  no  effort  to  save  themselves  and  their 
brethren  from  the  control  of  so  undue  and  illegitimate  an  autho- 
vity  ?  Could  none  be  found  amongst  them  possessed  of  so  much  zeal 
in  the  service  of  their  divine  Master,  so  ardently  attached  to  his 
holy  institutions,  as  to  induce  them  to  resist  such  a  bold  and  impi- 
ous attempt  ?  In  short,  would  not  such  an  attempt  by  a  few  Pres- 
byters, according  to  the  uniform  course  of  things,  necessarily  have 
agitated  and  convulsed  the  Chm-ch  ?  Would  not  the  period  of  suclv 
an  innovation  have  become  a  marked  and  peculiar  sera  in  her  ex- 
istence ?  Can  the  advocates  of  parity  show  any  thing  in  the  history 
ef  man  analogous  to  their  supposed  change  in  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment at  this  time  ?  Could  ever  such  a  radical  and  important  alter- 
ation have  been  produced  in  any  government,  civil  or  ecclesiastical, 
without  being  accompanied  by  violence  and  convulsion  ?  We  find 
that  the  congregations,  at  this  time,  were  extremely  jealous  of  the 
authority  that  was  exercised  over  them.  This  jealousy  made  its 
appearance  even  during  the  times  of  the  Apostles.  Some  took  it 
upon  themselves  to  call  in  question  the  authority  of  St.  Paul,  others 
that  of  St.  John.  From  the  Epistle  of  Clemens  to  the  Corinthians, 
it  would  seem  as  if  some  disorders  had  arisen  amongst  them  from  a. 
similar  source.  Is  it  to  be  supposed  then  that  any  number  of  Pres- 
byters would  have  dared,  would  have  proved  successful  had  they 
dared,  to  endeavour  to  accumulate  in  their  hands  such  undue  autho- 
rity as  that  which  was  claimed  by  Bishops  ?  And  even  if  we  should 
allow  that  a  few  Presbyters  might  in  some  places  have  had  the  ta- 
lents and  address  to  elevate  themselves  to  this  superiority  overtheii* 
brethren,  is  it  probable,  is  it  possible,  that  this  took  place  at  the 
same  time  over  the  universal  Chuixh  ?  Can  sucii  a  singular  coin- 
cidence of  circumstances  be  reasonably  imagined  ?  The  Church 
had,  at  this  time,  widely  extended  herself  over  the  Roman  empire. 
Did,  then,  the  Churches  of  Africa,  of  Asia,  of  Europe,  l)y  a  mira- 
culous unanimity  of  opinion,  enter  at  the  same  moment  into  the  de- 
termination to  change  their  form  of  government  froan  the  Presbyte- 
rial  to  the  Episcopal  ?  I  will  not  do  so  much  discredit  to  the  under- 
standing of  any  reader  as  to  imagine  that  he  does  not  at  once  per- 
ceive the  inadmissibility  and  the  absurdity  of  such  a  supposition. 

Let  us,  however,  suppose  the  most  that  our  adversaries  can  de- 
sire. Let  us  supjwse  tl.at  the  primitive  rulers  of  the  Church  were 
destitute  of  principle.  Let  us  suppose  them  devoid  of  attachment 
to  the  institutions  of  Christ.  Let  us  su])posc  that  they  waited  every 
opix>rtunity  to  promote  their  own  aggrandizement.  Let  us  suppose 
•the  diiiicultica  ii;moYcd  that  opposed  them  in  their  ascent  towards 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  XXIII.  UT 

the  chair  of  Episcopal  authority.  What  was  there,  at  this  period, 
in  the  office  of  Bishop  to  excite  their  desires,  or  to  invite  their  ex- 
ertions to  obtain  it?  The  veneration  attached  to  it,  as  yet,  extended 
no  farther  than  to  the  family  of  the  faithful.  Tiie  Church  was  on 
a.l  hands  encountered  by  the  bitterest  enemies.  By  elevating  them- 
selves, therefore,  to  the  pre-eminence  of  Bishops,  they  only  raised 
them:  elves  to  pre-eminence  in  difficulties,  in  dangers,  in  deaths. 
Their  blood  was  always  the  first  that  was  drunk  by  the  sword  of 
persecution.  Their  station  only  exposed  them  to  more  certain  and 
more  horrid  deaths.  Was  an  office  of  this  kind  an  object  of  cupi- 
dity ?  Is  it  to  be  supposed  that  great  exertions  would  be  made, 
many  difficulties  encountered  to  obtain  it?  But  I  need  say  no  more 
on  this  part  of  the  subject. 

The  idea  that  an  alteration  took  place  at  this  time  in  the  form  of 
government  originally  established  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  is  alto- 
gether unsupported  by  any  proof. 

It  is  proved  to  be  unfounded  by  unnumbered  considerations. 

CYPRIAN. 


W, 


For  the  jilbany  Centinel. 
MISCELLANIES.    No.  XXIIL 


HILE  the  extracts  from  Bishop  White's  pamphlet  may  have 
some  effect  in  lowering  the  flight  of  certain  Episcopalians,  they  will 
be  to  the  great  body  cause  of  satisfaction  and  joy.  It  will  be  seen 
that  the  defence  of  Episcopacy  does  not  rest  on  divine  right  and 
imiiiterru/Ued  successio?i ;  but  on  exfiediency^  or  a  fireference  for 
that  particular  form  of  government.*  Thus,  it  may  be  maintained 
with  perfect  toleration  and  charity  towards  other  denominations. 
Let  Episcopalians  be  assured  that  they  are  not,  in  general,  blamed 
for  unchurching  all  others.-  The  charge  is  brought  only  against  a 
few  of  aspiring  minds,  who  have  written  with  hitle  prudence,  and 
'vvith  too  slight  an  examination  of  the  subject. f     Bishop  White  con- 

*  Does  not  the  preface  to  the  ordination  services  "  rest"  Episcopacy  on  Scrip- 
ture and  ancient  aiithom?  Do  not  the  prayers  in  the  ordination  services  set 
ibrtli  that  Almlgljty  God,  by  his  holy  Spirit,  appointed  the  orders  cif'tLe  Priest- 
■hood?  Does  not  Hookek,  who  stands  at  the  head  of  the  venerable  list  of  the 
advocates  of  Episcopacy,  inaintain,  that  "  the  institution  of  Bishops  wa» 
from  God,  the  Holy  Ghost  was  the  author  of  it  ?"  Does  not  Bishop  White 
himself  maintain,  that  "  the  Apostles  appointed  some  with  a  supcremineut 
comviission,  and  that  the  persons  so  apj)ointed  have  handed  doxi-n  their 
commission  through  the  different  ages  of  the  Church  ?"  What  founda- 
tion then  has  the  assertion  that  "  the  defence  of  Episcopacy  dcos  not  rest 
on  divine  right  and  uninterrupted  succession,  but  on  expediency  or  prefer- 
enct?"  Ed. 

t  Let  the  justice  of  this  last  charge  be  tested  by  the  present  discusr 
sion.  As  to  the  charge  of  "  aspiring  minds  ;"  there  may  be  as  much 
pride  in  opposing  Episcopacy,  as  in  advocating  its  claims.  There  is  not  a 
little  truth  in  the  observation  of  the  Layman  in  his  second  address  :  "  This 
Jofty  hatred  of  subordination,  ah!  how  opposite  is  it  to  the  humility  of 
<he  Gospel!  What  mischief  hath  it  not  operated  both  in  Churrh  and  itj 
State!"  JUd. 


J48  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XXIIL 

eludes  his  pamphlet  with  urging  tlie  same  doctrine  and  the  iamft 
pious  sentiments  with  which  he  began ;  as  will  appear  from  the 
loUowing : 

"  Perhaps,  hoAvever,  there  would  be  little  room  for  difference  of 
sentiment  among  the  well  informed,  if  the  matter  were  generally 
taken  up  with  seriousness  and  moderation,  and  were  to  reh,t  on  i-e- 
ligious  principles  alone.  But  unhappily  there  are  some,  in  whose 
ideas  the  existence  of  their  Church  is  so  connected  with  that  of  the 
civil  government  of  Britain,  as  to  preclude  their  concurrence  in 
any  system,  formed  on  a  presumed  final  separation  of  the  two 
countries.  Prejudices  of  this  sort  will  admit  of  no  conviction  but 
such  as  may  arise  from  future  events ;  and  are  therefore  no  farther 
considered  in  this  performance,  than  with  a  sincere  sorrow,  that 
any  persons,  professing  to  be  of  the  communion  of  the  Church  of 
England,  should  so  far  mistake  the  principles  of  that  Church,  as 
to  imagine  them  widely  different  from  what  foriii  the  religion  of  the 
scriptures. 

"  As  for  those  who  arc  convinced  that  the  United  States  have 
risen  to  an  independent  rank  among  the  nations,  or  who  even  think 
that  such  may  probably  be  the  event  of  the  war,  they  are  loudly 
called  on  to  adopt  measures  for  the  continuance  of  their  churches, 
as  they  regard  the  public  worship  of  God,  the  fouiidation  of  which 
is  immutable  ;  as  they  esteem  the  benefit  of  the  sacraments,  which 
were  instituted  by  the  supreme  Bishop  of  the  Church;  and  as  they 
are  bound  to  obey  the  scriptures,  which  enjoin  us  '  not  to  forsake  the 
assembling  of  ourselves  together,  as  the  maiiner  of  seme  is.' 

"  It  is  presumed  there  are  many,  who,  while  they  sincerely  love 
their  fellow  Christians  of  every  denomination,  knowing  (as  one  of 
their  prayers  expresses)  that  the  '•  body  of  Christ'  comprehends 
*  the  blessed  company  of  all  faithful  people,'  are  more  especially 
attached  to  their  own  mode  of  worship,  Jia-hafis  from  education, 
but  as  they  conceive^  from  its  being  most  agreeable  to  reason  and 
scripture,  and  its  most  nearly  resembling  the  pattern  of  the  purest 
ages  of  the  Church.  On  the  consciences  of  such,  above  all  oihers, 
may  be  pressed  the  obligation  of  adopting  speedy  and  decisive  mea- 
sures to  prevent  their  being  scattered  "  like  sheep  without  a  shep- 
herd," and  to  continue  the  use  of  that  form  of  divine  service,  which 
they  believe  to  be  "  worshipping  the  Lord  in  the  beauty  of  holi- 
ness." 

From  the  above  extract  we  ai'e  informed  as  to  the  cause  of  the 
prejudices  of  some  against  the  system  proposed  by  the  Bishop ;  it 
was  an  attachment  to  thi>  civil  government  of  Britain,  and  an  op- 
position to  the  independence  of  the  United  States.*  Or,  they  con- 
ceived, that  the  existence  of  their  Church  depended  on  a  continu- 
ance of  its  former  connection.  But  there  is  a  remarkable  opposi- 
tion in  what  the  Bishop  pleads  for,  to  the  sentiments  expressed  by 
the  author  of  "  A  Companion  for  the  Festiv^als,"  S;c.  and  "  for  the 
Altar,"  Sec.     The  one  speaks  of  "  the  benefit  of  the  sacraments'* 

*  What  is  the  design  of  this  insinuation  ?  Episcnpalians  will  yi<^ld  t« 
none  in  attachment  to  the  goveinmeut  of  their  country,  an'I  in  zeal  for  its 
indepeitdence.  True  Chuichmeu  will  always  be  i'ouvA  u\c  supporters  of 
order  and  rood  L'overiur.c.ii.  i,V. 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  XXIII.  149 

«\flrainistered  by  those  who  shoiiid  be  ordained  in  the  manner  which 
tie  had  proposed,  and  without  the  ^'  Episcopal  succession  ;"  the 
other  declares  that  the  administration  of  ordinances  by  such,  would 
be  ''  nugatory  and  invalid."  He  puts  these  words  into  the  mouth 
of  a  comnmnxant :  "  Let  it  be,  therefore,  thy  supreme  care,  O 
my  soul,  to  receive  the  blessed  sacrament  of  the  bo>.!y  and  blood  of 
thy  Saviour,  only  from  the  hands  of  those  who  derive  their  authority 
by  regular  transmission  from  Christ,"  8cc.  In  another  place  he 
says,  that  "  none  can  possess  authority  to  administer  tiie  sacraments 
but  those  who  have  received  a  commission  from  the  Bishops  of  the 
Church."  Indeed  the  sentiment  runs  through  his  books,  which  he 
seems  to  have  written  on  purpose  to  inculcate  it. 

There  is  likewise  some  difference  between  the  Bishop  and  the 
Priest  as  to  their  notion  of  the  ''  body  of  Christ."  The  one  has  no 
scruple  to  call  other  denominations  '■'■  fellow  Christians ;" — the  other 
does  not  extend  his  charity  beyond  the  Episcopal  Church,  except 
in  cases  of  "  ignorance^  i?ivincihle  prejudices^  imperfect  reason- 
ings, ^nd.  mistaken  judgments  ;"*  and  even  in  these,  he  seems  un- 
willing to  make  any  "  alloivayice"  but  leaves  it  to  God.  His  notion 
of  "  fellow  Christians,"  and  "  the  blessed  company  of  all  faithful 
people,"  will  be  seen  in  what  he  says  on  the  Church  and  its  unity. 
He  lias  much  more  charity  for  the  Heathen  than  for  non-Episcopa- 
lians, as  appears  by  his  saying,  "  In  every  nation  he  that  fecireth 
God  and  ivorketh  7'ighteousness,  is  accepted  of  him.  But  where  the 
gospel  is  proclaimed,  communion  with  the  Church  by  the  partici- 
pation of  its  ordinances  at  the  hands  of  the  duly  authorised  Priest- 
hood, is  the  indispensable  condition  of  salvation."!  The  tender- 
ness of  the  Bishop  is  remarkable  in  accounting  for  the  attachment 
of  Episcopalians  to  their  own  mode  of  woiship.  "  Perhc/is,"  says 
he,  "  from  education,  but  as  they  ccnceive,  from  its  being  most 
agreeable  to  reason  and  scripture,"  8cc.  He  does  not  magisterially 
pronounce  that  they  are  right ;  but  they  conceive  that  they  are ; 
they  have  been  educated  in  ihis  opinion  ;  and  he  is  vv'illing  to  make 
the  same  allowance  for  others,  VVith  the  author  of  ''  A  Compa- 
nion for  the  Festivals,"  Sec.  no  excuse  is  admitted  for  a  departure 
from  Episcopacy,  except  what  approaches  to  profound  ignorance, 
or  downright  idiocy.:}:  I  shall  now  make  some  brief  reflections 
upon  the  wliole. 

1.  It  may  be  said  that  Bishop  White  pleads  only  for  "  a  tempo- 
rary departure"  fi-om  Episcopacy,  and  that  in  cases  of '•'necessity." 
I  answer,  that  his  reasoning  is  as  strong  for  a  total  as  for  a  temjio- 


*  Wiiat  more  charitable  excuKes  can  b?  made  for  the  errors  of  men,  than 
by  assign i Pig  these  errors  co  unavoidahk  ignorance,  to  invincible  prejudices, 
or  to  those  causes  to  which  the  greatest  and  the  best  of  men  arc  exposed, 
imperfect  reason i'l^i-  and  miiit.i/eii  judgvients?  Ed. 

t  Why  did  the  author  of  MiGc:.:;lanies  omit  the  sentence  which  imme- 
diately follows  ihe  above,  in  which  ttnavordable  igiimcince,  and  iwDoiuntarv 
error,  are  admitted  as  e\cu3es  fur  beparation  tVoni  the  d'Jy  authorised 
Priesthood  of  tlie  Church  ?  Ed. 

I  The  author  of  Miscellanies  here  repeats  the  very  candid  remarks  which 
he  before  made  in  his  21st  luiniber.  Let  the  read'jr  see  there  the  note  u[>on 
tbcin,  p.  1.'2,  123.  £d. 


150  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XXIII. 

rary  departure.*  How  long  is  the  departure  to  last  ?  It  will  be  an- 
swered, as  long  as  the  necessity.  This  may  be  for  ever.  The  Bi- 
shop was  of  opinion  when  he  wrote,  that  it  might  be  a  considerable 
time.  "  Are  the  acknowledged  ordinances  of  Christ's  holy  reli- 
gion," says  he,  "  to  be  suspended  for  years,  perhaps  as  long  as  the 
present  generation  shall  continue,  out  of  delicacy  to  a  disputed  point", 
and  that  I'elating  only  to  externals?"  But,  let  me  ask,  of  what  ad- 
vantage would  Ministers  be,  ordained  in  the  manner  proposed  by 
the  Bishop,  if,  as  the  author  so  often  referred  to  asserts,  there 
•would  be  no  "  duly  authorized  Priesthood,"  and  the  administration 
of  ordinances  by  them  would  Ixs  "  inefficacious?"!  If  it  would  be 
departing  from  the  Bishoji^  violating  the  unity  of  the  Church,  and 
interrupting  the  "  uninterrupted  succession  ?"  Not  to  spend  many 
%vords  with  my  opponents ;  do  they  give  up  the  notion  that  Epis- 
copacy is  of  divine  right,  and  do  they  contend  for  it  on  the  same 
principles  with  Bishop  White  ?"|  Do  they  admit  the  validity  of 
Presbyterian  ordination,  and  acknowledge  that  there  are  other  true 
Churches  besides  their  own  ?  If  so,  all  controversy,  on  my  part,  is 
at  an  end. 

2.  It  is  a  happy  circumstance  for  Episcopalians  that  Bishop 
White  published  his  pamphlet,  and  that  it  is  still  to  be  found.  They 
might  otherwise  be  deemed  the  most  intolerant  sect  which  has  ever 
existed. [I  In  justice  to  themselves  they  ought  to  have  the  pamphlet 
re-printed  ;  for  large  as  my  extracts  have  been,  there  would  be  a 
superior  advantage  in  reading  the  whole. 

3.  There  is  reason  to  lament  that  Episcopalians  did  not  improve 
the  opportunity  which  the  revolution  gave  them.  Had  they  formed 
4he  government  of  their  Church  on  the  plan  recommended  by  Bi- 
shop White,  and  then  invited  non-Episcopalians  to  a  friendly  con- 
ference, some  ground  might  have  been  found  on  which  to  meet. 
Even  the  idea  of  permanent  presidents  might  have  been  listened 
to ;  but  to  insist  upon  the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy,  and  upon  an 
order  of  Bishops  having  extraordinary  powers,  and  uninterrupted 
succession  from  tlie  Apostles,  was  to  bar  the  door  against  all  ac 
eommodation. 

4.  I  believe  that  Bishop  White  will  say  that  I  have  not  misrepre- 
sented his  meaning.  If  in  any  place  I  have  been  so  unfortunate  as 
to  misunderstand  him,  I  shall,  upon  the  least  notice,  correct  it; 
and  if  I  find  others  misrepresenting  him,  I  shall  consider  myself 
tinder  obligation  to  defend  him. 

*  Let  us  hear  what  the  author  of  the  pamphlet  himself  savs  on  this  point. 
•'  Surely  with  a  man  who  believes  there  have  been  three  orders  from  the 
beginning,  the  necessity  of  a  temporary  departure  does  not  involve  that  of 
•i. final  abrogation."     See  his  letter  signed  "  An  Episcopalian."  Ed. 

t  "  A  case  of  inevitable  necessity"  may  be  an  exception  to  a  general 
principle.  Ed. 

\  W^ill  the  author  of  Miscellanies  adopt  Episcopacy  on  the  principles  of 
B'shop  White,  and  admit  that  the  Apostles  constituted  an  order  of  the  ini^ 
nistry  viiih  a  su/ierejuincnt  comtnission,  -ivhich  has  been  handed  dovm  tbrougk 
sucreeding  ages  ?  Ed. 

IJ  VV  hat  spirit  does  this  charge  display  ?  To  style  a  sect  intolerant,  for 
exercising  a  jjrivilege  which  they  enjoy  in  cotsmon  with  other  denomina- 
tions, and  maintaining  the  principles  of  their  Church  I  Ed. 


MISCELLANIES.    No.  XXIII.  15  v 

ir.  Should  I  continue  to  write,  I  shall  examine  the  testimony  of 
the  Fathers ;  though  I  consider  this  as  altogether  unnecessary. 
They  have  been  repeatedly  examined  by  those  who  had  the  best 
opportunity,  and  they  do  not  prove,  in  the  early  ages  of  Christianity, 
the  existence  of  cliocrsan  Bisl\ops.  The  very  utmost  that  can  be 
drawn  from  them,  is,  that  Presbyters  were  chosen  to  preside,  either 
for  a  time,  or  permanently,  in  their  ecclesiastical  assemblies.* 
The  Epis-copacy  of  the  primitive  Church  was  widely  different  froni 
that  established  in  the  Churches  of  Home  and  of  England.  I  shall, 
however,  cease  for  a  time,  and  allow  my  opponents,  if  they  be  sa 
inclined,  to  come  up  with  me. 

•  Let  us  see  now  what  Bishop  Hoadi.y,  who  cannot  be  suspected  of 
partiality,  says  on  this  point.  "  Some  otlier  learned  men  see  such  manifest 
footsteps,  in  the  highest  antiquity,  of  the  supereminency  of  one  person  in 
the  Cburc/jes,  that  they  are  obliged  to  own  it :  but  then  they  say  that  at 
first  this  was  only  a  Prime-Fresbyter,  a  President  in  the  meeting  of  the 
Presbyters,  not  invested  with  any  authority,  properly  so  called,  over  them  in 
their  cures,  but  voluntarily  chosen  by  them  for  the  better  management  of 
their  assemblies,  &c.  This  hath  been  said  by  the  learned  Blondel,  and 
others.  But  I  fear  this  will  be  found  only  an  evasion,  in  order  to  avoid  his 
acknowledging  such  Bishops  in  the  very  iirst  years  after  tlie  Apostles,  as  he 
confesses  to  have  been  universally  settled  less  than  forty  years  after  them. 
For, 

"  The  instances  in  antiquity  which  he  achto~^i>lea'gcs  to  prove  this,  do 
indeed  prove  a  great  deal  more.  The  Angels  of  the  Churches  in  the  Peve- 
lations,  are  persons  to  whom  the  care  of  those  Churches  was  in  a  particular 
manner  committed;  and  of  whom  an  account  of  the  miscarriages  and  de- 
fects in  them,  is  in  a  particular  manner  required.  These,  he  saith,  were 
Prinie-P) esbyiers,  not  Bishops  :  though  it  will  be  hard  to  give  a  reason,  un- 
less he  will  draw  an  argument  from  hence,  that  all  parts  of  the  Episcopal 
office  are  not  here  expressly  attributed  to  them.  And  it  will  be  hard  like- 
wise, to  show,  how  a  Prime-Preslnter ,  by  being  only  chosen  Presiclcr.t  of 
the  Collie  of  Presbyters  for  the  mere  orderly  management  of  their  joint- 
counsels,  should  become  chargeable  with  x\\s  faults  of  their  Churches,  with 
which,  according  to  this  supposition,  he  had  nothing  to  do.  For  it  is  ma- 
nifest he  could  be  no  more  accountable  for  diV.y  congregation  but  his  own, 
than  any  of  the  otl'.er  Presbyters,  had  he  not  the  care  of  others  com.niitted 
to  him  in  some  peculiar  manner.  And  this  he  could  not  have,  if  he  were 
only  Prime-Presb,ter  in  th.e  College.  For  as  such  he  v/as  only  responsible 
for  his  own  failings  in  his  duty  in  that  post:  and  as  for  other  faults,  an 
account  of  them  should  rather  have  been  demanded  of  those  Presbyters  Vvdio 
were  the  teachers  and  governors  of  the  particular  congregations.  But  if 
a  Prime- Presbyter  were  one  whose  duty  it  was  to  inspect  and  take  care  of 
those  Churches,  in  which  there  Vvcre  Presbyters  also  fixed,  as,  accordhig  to 
Blonde/,  he  must  have  been  ;  then  it  is  evident  that  this  Prime-Presbyter 
was  in  truth  a  Bishop  with  subject  Presbyters  under  him.  And  since  he 
freely  grants  that  these  Pri^m- Presbyters  had  the  superintendency  over 
many  churches  or  congregations  with  their  Presbyters:  and  was  after  such 
a  manner  responsible  for  them  ;  and  this  by  the  constitution  of  the  Apos- 
tles, or  their  discip'xs  before  the  death  of  them  all ;  what  is  this  but  to  giva 
them  the  domirrion  of  a  Bishop  over  their  brethren?  and  what  reason  can 
be  given  why  it  should  not  be  acknowledged  that  Episcopacy  was  settled  in 
the  churches  in  those  early  days  ?  Kspecially  considering  that  this  Prime- 
presbyter  rcmaiiicd  in  his  cfBce  during  his  life.  "  Hoadly's  Def  of  F.n's. 
Ord."  >:■-:. 


152       REMARKS  ON  MISCELLANIES.    No.  XXIIL 

6.  The  charges  have  been  brought  against  me  of  having  taken! 
tip  a  prejudice  against  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  of  liaving  writ- 
Ten  with  bitterness.  Nothing  has  ever  occurred  to  excite  my  pre- 
judices against  that  Church;  ixnd  the  writings  of  many  of  hef 
Clergy  are  to  me  invalu:il)le.  I  esteem  theii*  book  of  "  Common 
Prayer  ;"  and  as  to  tlie  Episcopalians  in  this  State  with  whom  I  am 
acquainted,  both  Clergy  and  Laity,  I  have  a  high  respect  for  them. 
Some  of  my  expressions  may  have  been  too  playful,  and  bordered  on 
ridicule;  but  as  to  personal  resentment,  bitterness,  I  reject  them, 
because  I  never  felt  them. — With  the  author  who  has  been  the  oc-« 
casion  of  my  writing,  my  acquaintance  is  small.  I  know,  however, 
enough  to  make  me  respect  his  talents  and  his  virtues.  As  to  my 
principal  opponents,  "  A  Layman"  and  "  Cyprian,"  I  wish  that 
the  former  may  soon  become  a  good  Priest,  and  the  latter,  in  due 
time,  a  good  Bishop.  I  have  no  objection  to  their  preferring  Epis- 
copal ordination,  provided  that  they  will  cease  to  assei-t  it  on  divine 
ri^ht ;  for  I  think  that  this  is  mitenable,  offensive  to  their  felloW 
Christians  of  other  denominations,  and  injurious  to  themselves. 


i^Remarks,  by  the  Editor.^  on  the  iircccding  J^umber,'\ 

It  is  certainly  the  duty  of  every  Episcopal  Minister  to  enforce?' 
what  his  Church  inculcates;  that  "  Almighty  God,  by  his  holy 
Spii'it  instituted  divers  orders  of  Ministers  in  his  Church ;"  that 
"  it  is  evident  unto  all  men  diligently  reading  holy  scripture  and 
ancient  authors,"  that  these  orders  "  are  Bishops,  Priests,  and 
Deacons  ;"  and  that  "  no  man  is  to  be  esteemed  a  /a-r^w/Ministerj 
ivho  has  not  had  Episcopal  consecration  or  ordination."  Prudence 
may  be  exerted  in  the  manner  in  which  this  is  done,  but  certainly 
cannot  absolve  liim  from  the  duty  itself.  To  the  charges  of 
uncharitableness  and  intolerance  which  may  be  brought  against 
him,  let  him  reply  in  the  language  of  one  of  the  most  able  de- 
fenders of  evangelical  truth  and  primitive  order  that  the  pre- 
sent age  has  produced:*  "  As  a  Minister  of  the  Church,  it  is 
my  duty  to  speak  of  it  an  it  is.  I  cannot  alter  the  nature  or 
form  of  it,  to  accommodate  it  to  tlie  case  of  those  who  are  se- 
parated from  it.  Firmly  persuaded  with  Hooker,  that  Efiis- 
cofiacy  is  the  primitive  afiostolical  institution,,  I  must  consider 
obedience  to  it  to  be  a  matter  of  Christian  obligation.  Every  en- 
deavour, therefore,  to  persuade  my  fellow  Christians  to  a  confor- 
mity to  that  government  which  appears  essential  to  the  promotion 
of  the  object  which  (Jod  may  be  sa])posed  to  have  had  in  view  at 
its  original  institution,  namely,  that  of  Jireaerving  the  unity  of  the 
Church  in  the  bond  of  peace,,  ap))car!i  to  me  to  be  one  of  the  great- 
est acts  of  charity  a  Christian  Minister  can  perform." — "  At  the 
same  time,  with  respect  to  those  who  are  in  an  actual  state  of  sepa- 
ration, we  say  with  the  Apostle,  '  what  have  wc  to  do  to  judge 

;  •  Rev.  Cliarlcn  Dauber;!',  now   Arcbfj?':icon  of  Sarum.     See  the  rix'h 
'lletter  of  his  "  Appendix  to  liis  Guide,"  and  the  preface  to  the  *ccc«i  cJi- 
tipa  of  the  "  Guide  to  the  Cliurch." 


LAYMAN.    No.  IX.  153 

tliem  that  are  without;  them  that  are  withoat  God  judgeth  ;' 
they  are  in  the  hands  of  that  all  gracious  and  all  merciful  Being 
wlio  judgeth  righteous  judgment;  and  to  him  we  leave  them." 

How  far  the  maintaining  of  Episcopacy  may  be  "  injuriou&"  to 
Episcopalians  in  a  worldly  sense,  is  a  consideration  which  ought  to 
have  no  force  on  the  conscience  of  her  Mirii'^ters.  But  surely  the 
viuthor  of  Miscellanies  does  not  mean  to  insinuate  that  Episcopa- 
lians are  to  be,  in  any  shafie^  the  subjects  of  fiersecution  for  exer- 
cising a  privilege  possessed  by  ail  denominations,  for  maintaining 
tenets  wliich  have  been  handed  down  from  the  csirliest  ages  of  the 
Church  ;  tenets  which,  in  the  opinion  of  one  by  no  means  partial 
to  them,  "  have  been  from  the  beginning  favourable  to  jicace  and 
good  order."* 

That  the  inculcating  of  Episcopacy  has  been  injurious  to  the 
Episcopal  Church  in  a  sfdrilual  sense,  is  contrary  to  fact.  As  a 
afiiritual  society^  slie  has  always  flourished  most,  when  her  Minis- 
ters have  not  only  faithfully  inculcated  her  evangelical  docfrincy 
and  strictly  adhered  to  her  firiinitive  ivomhiji,  but  liave  also  main- 
tained, with  firm  and  prudent  zeal,  the  Divine  comminsion  of  the 
orders  of  her  ministry,  Jid, 


For  the  Albany  Centinel. 

THE  LAYMAN.    No.  IX. 

X  HE  question  of  Episcopacy,  is  a  question  of  fact,  to  be  deter- 
mined by  a  sound  interpretation  of  the  sacred  volume. 

Let  us  attend  to  the  situation  of  the  Church  while  our  Saviour 
■was  upon  earth. 

Let  us  attend  to  its  situation  under  the  government  of  the  Afios-^ 
ties,  who  were  sent  by  the  Son,  as  the  Son  had  been  sent  by  the 
Father. 

Jesus  Christ  commissioned  twelve  and  the  seventy,  but  he  gave 
them  no  authority  to  commission  others.  The  high  power  of  ordi- 
nation was  exercised  by  himself  alone.  Here,  then,  were  three 
orders ;  our  Saviour^  the  great  Head  of  the  Church,  the  twelve 
A/iostles,  and  the  seventy  Disciples, 

The  twelvTi  were  superior  to  the  seventy,  both  in  dignity  and/?owrr. 

They  were  superior  in  dignity.  The  Apostles  are  evei-y  where 
spoken  of  as  the  constant  attendants  of  our  Lord.  VVe  are  ex- 
pressly told  that  they  were  ordained,  that  they  might  be  with  Jesus, 
as  well  as  that  he  might  send  them  forth  to  preach.  Mark  iii.  14. 
The  seventy  were  appointed  simply  to  preach,  and  were  sent  before 
our  Lord  into  the  cities,  "  whither  he  himself  would  come,"  to  pre- 
pare the  people  for  his  reception.  The  commission  of  the  Apostles 
was  much  more  general,  directing  them  to  preach  the  gospel  to 
all  the  Jews. 

Again — The  inauguration  of  the  twelve  was  much  more  solemn 
than  that  of  tlie  seventy.     In  relation  to  the  first,  we  find  our  Sa- 

*  Smi'IiN  Wca'th  cf  Nations.  Book  v   cliao.  1.    Part  iii.  Art  3.      • 

X    ■     .    *    ■ 


isi  LAYI\iAN.    No.  IX. 

viour  directing  his  disciples  to  pray  to  God  to  send  labourers  into 
the  harvest.  We  find  him  continuing  himself  a  whole  night  in 
prayer.  In  the  inauguration  of  the  seventy,  there  was  nothing  of 
all  this  solemnity. 

The  Apostles  were,  likewise,  superior  in /iower. 

They  alone  received  the  commission  to  offer  the  eucharistic  sa^ 
crifice  of  bread  and  wine.  To  them  were  twelve  thrones  appointed, 
whereon  they  should  sit,  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.  On 
them  -was  to  rest  the  fabric  of  the  Church ;  "  the  wall  of  the  city 
havhig  tivel-ve  foundations,  and  in  th^m  the  names  of  the  tivebve 
Afiostles  of  the  Lamb"  Revelation  xxi.  14.  Upon  the  happen- 
ing of  a  vacancy,  by  the  apostaey  of  Judas,  Matthias  was  raised 
to  his  Bishopricli,  being  numbered  Avith  the  eleven  Apostles,  and 
taking  a  part  of  their  Ministry.  Acts  i.  Matthias  had  been  one  of 
the  seventy.  For  this  we  have  the  testimony  of  Eusebius,  of  Jerome, 
of  Epiphanius.  Mark,  Luke,  Sosthenes,  with  other  Evangehsts,  as 
also  the  seven  Deacons,  were  of  the  seA^enty,  if  the  primitive  Father* 
of  the  Church  be  at  all  to  be  rehed  upon  as  witnesses  of  facts.  And 
these  persons,  even  after  their  promotion,  were  still  inferior  to  the 
twelve,  being  under  their  government. 

The  twelve  Apostles^  and  the  seventy  disci/iles,  then,  were  dis- 
tinct orders,  whether  we  have  respect  to  their  dignity  or  their 
power. 

Let  us  proceed  to  consider  the  situation  of  the  Church,  under 
the  government  of  the  Ap.ostles^  their  Master  having  ascended  to 
heaven. 

The  eleven  met  our  Saviour,  on  a  mountain  in  Galilee,  accord- 
ing to  his  express  appointment.  "  And  Jesus  came  and  sfiake  unto 
them.,  sayings  Allpower  isginen  unto  Tne,  in  heaven,  and  in  earth.  Go 
ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  bajitizing  them  in  the  7iafne  of 
the  Father, and  of  the  Son,andofthe  Holy  Ghost :  Teachi?7gthem  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you:  And  lo,  I 
am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world,"  Matt,  xxviii, 
38,  19,  20. 

"  Then  said  Jesus  to  them  again.  Peace  be  unto  you :  As  mij 
Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you.  And  when  he  had  said 
this,  he  breathed  on  them,  and  saith  unto  them.  Receive  ye  the 
Holy  Ghoit.  Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unt» 
the7n  ;  and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained."  Johnxx. 
21,  22,  23._ 

Our  Saviour,  then,  constituted  the  Apostles  Governors  of  his 
Church,  authorizing  them  to  exei'cise  the  powers  necessary  to  re- 
gulate its  affairs,  and  to  pi-ovide  for  its  continuance.  This,  of 
course,  involved  the  right  of  ordaining  such  inferior  officers  as 
might  appear  to  them  to  be  requisite.  Indeed,  the  commission  ex- 
pressly says,  "As  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you." 
Jesus  was  sent  by  the  Father,  with  jjower  to  send  others ;  and,  of 
course,  the  Apostles  were  sent  with  a  similar  authority.  In  pursu- 
ance of  their  commission,  they  ordained  the  two  inferior  orclers  of 
Elders  and  Deacons;  and,  before  their  departure  from  the  world, 
they  created  a  higher  order,  investing  it  with  their  own  Apostolic 
authority  of  ordaining  Ministers,  and  of  governing  the  Church. 

Into  all  this  let  us  briefly  inquire. 


LAYMAN.    No.  IX.  iss 

Were  the  Apostles  invested  with  spiritual  authority  over  lay 
Christians  ? 

Did  they  possess  any  control  over  the  Ministers  whom  they  or- 
dained? 

Was  their  office  an  extraordinary  one,  or  was  it  designed  for 
permanent  continuance  in  tlie  Church  ?  in  other  words,  have  they 
had  Successors  ? 

It  cannot  be  necessary  to  say  much  to  prove  that  lay  Christians 
were  subject  to  the  spiritual  jurisdiction  of  the  A/wstlcs.  Did  any 
ofthelawsof  Christ  require  explanation,  recourse  wasliadtothe 
Apostles,  and  their  sentence  every  where  obeyed.  They,  likewise, 
prescribed  such  rules  as  wei-e  necessary  to  the  peace  of  the  Cliurch, 
or  the  order  and.  decency  of  divine  worship.  In  the  first  Epistle  of 
Paul  to  the  Corinthians  we  find  laws,  many  of  which  were  never 
expressly  enjoined  by  Christ,  and  to  some  of  which  the  Apostle 
requires  obedience  on  the  avowed  pi'inciple  of  his  own  authority, 
"  And  the  rest  nviU  I  set  in  order  ii-licn  I  come."  '■'•  Andso  ordain  I 
in  all  Churches,"  In  the  same  style  Paul  addresses  theThessalo- 
nians,  "  JVe  have  confidence  that  ye  both  do,  and  will  do  the  thing's 
%vhich  tve  command  you." — "  When  ti}e  were  with  you,  tve  ccin- 
manded  yo7i," — "  •A'bw  ive  commandyou  brethren."  2  Thes.  iii.  It 
would  be  easy  to  produce  a  great  variety  of  passages  on  this  point ; 
but  it  cannot  be  necessary.  Let  it  also  be  remarked,  that  the 
power  of  prescribing  rules  was  accompanied  vvith  thepov/er  of  en- 
forcing their  execution  by  suitable  punishments.  In  his  Epistles  to 
the  Corinthians,  Paul  threatens  to  use  shai-pness,  to  come  with  a 
rod,  and  to  revenge  all  disobedience.  The  same  Apostle  delivered 
Hymeneus  a.nd  Alexander  unto  Satan,  that  they  might  learn  not  to 
blaspheme.  He  condemned,  even  in  his  absence,  the  incestuous 
Corinthian;  requiring  sti'iclly  that  his  sentence  be  put  in  execu- 
tion. With  the  power  of  inflicting  punishment  was  connected  that 
of  pardoning  the  condenmcd ;  a  power  exercised  by  St.  Paul  in 
the  case  of  the  Corinthian,  which  has  just  been  mentioned. 

We  have  seen  that  the  commission  which  Christ  gave  to  his 
Apostles  invested  them  with  power  to  ordain  Miiiisters  in  his 
Church. 

This  power  they  accordingly  exercised. 

Tiie  twelve  together  •  rdained  the  seven  Deacons.  Paul  and 
Barnabas  ordained  Elders  in  every  city.  As  the  Apostles  were 
subject  to  Christ,  so  were  the  Ministers  wliom  the  Apostles  or- 
dained subject  to  them.  Whilst  our  Saviour  was  upon  earth,  the 
Apostles  were  his  attendants,  and  were  sent  forth  by  him  to  preach. 
And  after  his  ascension,  the  Apostles  received  a  similar  attendance 
and  obedience  from  the  inferior  ofiicers  whom  they  appointed.  For 
example,  Mark  was  Minister  to  Paul  and  Barnabas ;  afterwards  to 
Barnabas  alone.  At  Epiiesus,  St.  Paul  was  attended  by  Timotheus 
and  Erastus,  whom  he  sent,  before  him,  into  Macedonia.  But 
cases  showing  the  superior  authority  of  the  Apostles  occur  conti- 
nually in  the  New  Testament:  I  can  enumerate  but  a  few  of  them. 
Paul  calls  the  Elders  of  Epiiesus  to  Miletus,  and  gives  them  a  most 
solemn  charge.  Tliis  shows  clearly  that  they  were  under  his  go- 
vernment. At  Corinth,  the  same  Apostle,  although  absent,  excom- 


156  LAYMAN.    No.  IX. 

municates,  absolves,  enacts  laws.  Some  of  these  laws  too  were 
binding  upon  Ministers  who  had  been  endued  even  with  supei'natu- 
ral  gifts.  "  Let  the  Jirojihets  sfieak  two  or  three,  and  let  the  rest 
judge." — "  If  anil  man  think  himself  to  be  a  profihet,  or  sjiiritual, 
let  him  acknowledge  that  the  things  which  I  write  unto  ijou  are  the 
commandments  of  the  Lord."  1  Corinth,  xiv.  Ministers  who  re- 
fused to  pay  due  obedience  and  respect  to  the  Apostles,  are  cen- 
sured as  hereticks,  and  as  disturbers  of  the  peace  of  the  Church. 
An  example  of  this  kind  occurred  in  DiotrefiheSy  who  resisted  thfe 
authority  of  St.  John,  representing  him,  no  doubt,  as  "  a  Lord  in 
God's  heritage."  The  Apostle  threatened  to  punish  his  contumacy. 

The  Afiostles,  then,  were  the  supreme  governors  of  the  Church. 
Both  Clergy  and  Laity  were  subject  to  their  jurisdiction.  They 
alone  exercised  the  power  of  ordination,  by  which  the  sacerdotal 
authority  was  continued  and  preserved.  I  am  not  going  to  enter 
into  the  case  of  Timothy,  about  which  the  advocates  of  parity  so 
obstinately  dispute.  We  know  that  the  Apostles  ordained,  for  we 
are  expressly  told  so  in  different  parts  of  scripture ;  and  ecclesias- 
tical history  attests  the  fact  as  perfectly  as  any  fact  that  it  records. 
Let  our  opponents  pi-ove  that  the  term  Presbytery,  that  term  on 
■which  they  build  so  much  wretched  sophistry,  designates  an  assem- 
bly of  Elders  like  those  of  Ephesus.  This  they  can  never  prove ; 
and  until  they  prove  it,  the  passage  avails  them  nothing. 

Now,  let  us  inquire  whether  the  afiofstolic  office  was  purely  ex- 
traordinary and  personal  to  the  twelve ;  or  whether  it  was  de- 
signed ioY  permanent  co7itinuance  in  the  Church. 

"  Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 
How  will  those  who  contend  that  the  Apostles  have  had  no  succes- 
sors reconcile  this  passage  with  their  doctrine  !  The  individuals 
whom  Jesus  addressed,  continued  not  beyond  the  ordinary  term  of 
human  life.  The  promise  is  intelligible  only  when  considered  as 
embracing  those  who  should  throughout  all  time  succeed  to  the 
apostolic  office.  But  I  forbear  to  dwell  on  this  passage,  since  we 
have  evidence  on  the  point  amounting  to  absolute  demonstration. 
The  apostolic  office  was  not  personal  to  the  twelve.  ]t  did  not 
cease  with  them.  It  was  extended  to  others.  If  these  positions 
be  not  correct,  then  is  there  no  truth  in  the  Nev/  Testament. 

Upon  the  apostacy  of  Judas,  did  his  office  expire  ?  No ;  Mat- 
thias was  put  in  his  place,  being  numbered  with  the  eleven  Apos- 
tles.    "  And  his  Bishoprick  let  another  take."     Acts  i.  20. 

Barnabas  was  an  Apostle.  He  exercised  the  powers  of  an  Apos- 
tle, and  the  name  is  expressly  applied  to  him.  He  is  even  placed, 
in  the  history  of  the  Acts,  before  St.  Paul. 

Epaphroditus,  Andronicus,  and  Junius,  are  called  Apostles.  The 
translation,  it  is  true,  is  messenger ;  but  the  Greek  term  is  the 
very  one  which  in  other  places  is  rendered  Apostle,  and  why  it  is 
not  rendered  so  in  these  cases,  no  sufficient  reason  can  be  given. 
But  leave  out  of  the  question  the  examples  of  Epaphroditus,  An- 
dronicus, Junius.  The  cases  of  Barnaijas  and  Matthias  most  clearly 
prove  that  the  apostolic  office  was  not  personal  to  the  twelve.  If  it 
had  been  personal  to  the  twelve,  it  would  have  ceased  with  them* 
They  could  not  have  presumed  to  bestow  it  on  others.  >" 


LAYMAN.    No.  IX.  157 

If  from  scvlptuve  we  go  to  the  primitive  Fathers^  wc  find  therrt 
bearing  the  ni(jst  decisive  testimony  against  the  principle  foi-  which 
our  opponents  contend. 

Ireneus,  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Jerome,  all  speak  expressly  of 
Bisho/m  as  the  successors  of  the  Afiostles. 

How,  then,  do  the  advocates  of  parity  support  their  doctrine  in 
this  point  ? 

They  talk  to  us  of  the  miracles  which  the  Apostles  performed, 
of  the  prophecies  which  they  uttered,  of  their  being  inspired  wri- 
ters, and  witnesses  of  the  transactions  of  Jesus.  It  is  true,  the 
power  of  miracles  has  ceased,  so  also  of  prophecy.  The  scrip- 
tures being  composed,  there  could  be  no  further  necessity  for  in- 
spired penmen  ;  and  none  but  the  cotemporaries  of  Jesus  could  be 
■witnesses  of  his  acts.  But  did  these  things  make  up  the  apostolic 
office?  Surely  not:  if  they  did,  then  Apostles  existed  in  every 
congregation.  Supernatural  gifts  were  very  common  among  the 
primitive  Christians;  being  i)estowed  even  upon  women,  but  surely 
not  making  them  Apostles.  The  Apostles  governed  the  Church, 
they  preached,  they  baptised,  they  administered  the  eucharist,  they 
ordained,  they  confirmed.  In  all  this  they  exercised  powers  of  per- 
petual necessity  in  the  Church.  Where,  then,  is  the  pretext  for 
representing  them  as  officers  purely  extraordinary  ?  Was  preach- 
ing an  extraordinary  act?  was  baptising,  was  the  administration  of 
the  Holy  Supper,  was  ordaining  ?  No ;  the  Apostles  wei'e  stated 
and  regular  officers  of  the  Church.  To  talk  about  the  superna-' 
tural  gifts  bestowed  upon  them  is  perfectly  idle.  You  might  as  well 
say  that  the  women  on  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  was  effused,  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  were  all  Apostles. 

The  jl/iostles,  then,  were  regular  officers  of  the  Church  of 
Christ.  They  have  had  successors,  and  they  will  continue  to  have 
successors  until  the  end  of  the  world.  The  Elders  and  the  Dea- 
cons were  subject  to  their  control.  They  alone  exercised  the  high 
powers  of  ordination  and  go-uernment. 

We  proceed  to  observe  that,  before  their  departure  fi-om  the 
world,  tlieij  constituted  an  order  of  Ministers,  in  whom  they  in- 
vested these  powers,  giving  them  authority  to  rule  the  other  Cler- 
g\-.  and  making  them  the  channel  through  which  the  sacerdotal 
office  was  to  be  conveyed  to  future  generations. 

This  is  completely  proved  by  the  cases  of  St.  James,  Bishop  of 
•Icrusalem,  of  Timothy,  of  Titus,  of  Epaphroditus,  of  the  seven 
Angels  of  pro-consular  Asia.  Primitive  history  most  completely 
establishes  the  fact.  Clemens  Komanus,  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  Ire- 
neus, C'emens  of  Alexandria,  Tertuilian,  Origen,  Cyprian,  all 
prove  it  in  the  most  unequivocal  manner.  Look  for  one  moment 
at  Euscbius.  He  composed  his  history  in  the  beginning  of  the 
fourth  century,  about  two  liundred  years  after  the  death  of  the 
Apostle  John.  All  the  necessary  records  of  the  churches  were 
put  into  Jiis  hands  Ly  the  order  of  the  Emperor  Constantine,  and 
from,  these  he  compiled  itis  work.  Docs  he  give  any  account  of  a 
change  from  Prcsbyterianism  to  Episcopacy  ?  So  far  from  it,  that 
he  has  inserted  the  names  of  all  the  Bishops  who  had  succeeded 
t'lch  otlier,  in  the  principal  churches,  beginning  with  tlie  indivi- 
4m\%  whom  the  Apostles  appointed,  and  descending,  regularly, 


158  LAYMAN.    No.  IX. 

to  his  own  time.  Let  the  advocates  of  parity  produce  a  single  pri- 
mitive histoi'ian  who  yields  this  sort  of  evidence  to  the  apostolic 
institution  of  their  system.  They  cannot  produce  a  single  writer. 
This  I  aver  positively.  They  try  to  make  Clemens  Romanus  speak 
in  their  favour ;  but  it  is  by  the  old  and  miserable  sophistry  of  names. 
This  Father  sometimes  speaks  of  Bishops  and  Deacons ;  which 
circumstance,  say  the  advocates  of  parity,  proves  that  there  were 
but  two  oi-ders.  They  might  as  well  prove  that  there  were  but 
two  orders  under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  because  they  are  called 
Priests  and  Levites.  Clemens  Romanus  was  Bishop  of  Rome,  and 
ruled  the  inferior  Clergy.  This  we  are  expressly  told  by  Ireneus, 
TertuUian,  Eusebius,  St.  Jerome.  Clemens  of  Alexandria  styles 
him  Clement  the  Apostle. 

But  I  forbear.  This  paper  has  already  been  extended  to  too 
great  a  length  ;  and  I  am  now  obliged  to  leave  the  controversy.  It 
had  been  my  intention  to  go  regularly  through  the  evidences  of  the 
divine  institution  of  Episcopacy ;  but  a  voyage  to  Europe,  which  I 
have  been  some  time  contemplating,  and  which  I  am  now  compels 
led  to  take  for  the  benefit  of  my  health,  renders  this  impossible.  I 
regret  the  circumstance  the  less,  however,  since  the  able  writer, 
under  the  signature  of  Cyprian,  promises  to  do  full  justice  to  the 
subject.  Expecting  to  sail  in  a  few  days,  I  cheerfully  commit  to 
him  the  future  management  of  the  discussion. 

A  serious  examination  of  the  subject  of  Episcopacy  had  con- 
vinced me,  in  opposition  to  the  prejudices  and  habits  of  education, 
of  its  divine  origin  ;  and  a  sincere  desire  to  defend  what  I  esteem 
the  cause  of  truth  led  me  to  engage  in  this  controversy. 

While  I  believe  those  who  have  departed  from  Episcopacy  to  be 
in  a  great  error,  and  would  entreat  them,  in  the  most  urgent  man- 
ner, to  examine  the  principles  on  which  they  stand,  I  can  sincerely 
say  that  I  feel  disposed  to  put  the  best  construction  on  their  con- 
duct. There  are  excellent  men  of  all  denominations ;  and  great 
allowance,  we  humbly  hope,  will  be  made  for  error  by  the  righ- 
teous Judge  of  the  earth.  Let  it  be  recollected,  hov/ever,  that  error 
is  venial  only  in  proportion  as  it  is  involuntary.  How  then  shall 
that  man  excuse  himself  who,  having  been  Avarned  of  the  defect  of 
the  ministry  at  whose  hands  he  receives  the  ordinances  of  the 
gospel,  neglects,  nevertheless,  to  give  attention  to  the  subject,  and 
to  examine  dispassionately  those  works  which  prove  the  necessity 
of  union  with  that  Church,  the  validity  of  whose  ministrations,  even 
its  most  inveterate  opponents  are  obliged  to  acknowledge.  In  the 
Efiiscopal  Church  there  is  ccTtaiiiUj  cf  being  in  covenant  with  God. 
Its  Priesthood  has  a  valid  authority  to  act  in  the  name  of  Christ; 
and  I  do  believe  that  almost  all  who  shall  engage  in  the  examination 
of  this  subject,  with  a  determination  to  seek  only  for  truth,  will  come 
to  the  conclusion,  that  those  who  have  laid  aside  the  divinely  insti- 
tuted government  of  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,  must  rely  upon 
uncovenanted  mercv. 

I  cannot  but  regret  that  there  should  be  so  strong  a  disposition 
in  the  Miscellaneous  writer  to  descend  to  low  wit,  and  to  sneering 
and  contemptuous  expressions.  He  is  greatly  deceived  if  he  sup* 
poses  they  will  give  force  or  success  to  his  cause.  The  serious 
inquirer  after  truth  cannot  fail  to  be  disgusted  witli  such  conduct. 


LAYMAN.    No.  IX.  159 

It  certainly  furnishes  no  light  presumption  of  the  weakness  of  the 
system  into  whose  service  it  is  forced.  The  question  before  us  is 
of  the  highest  moment ;  and  all  disbcnters  who  can  possibly  find 
opportunity,  are  bound,  by  every  principle  of  duty,  to  give  it  an 
attentive  examination.  It  ill  becomes  our  opponents  to  endeavour 
to  put  the  thing  off,  by  representing  it  as  a  matter  of  little  import- 
ance, and  by  charging  Episcopalians  with  narrowness  and  bigotry. 
This  is  the  weak  resource  of  men,  conscious  of  the  unsoundness  of 
the  ground  on  which  they  stand.  We  invite  inquiry.  Let  the  prin- 
ciple for  which  we  contend  be  examined ;  recollecting,  always,  that 
the  institution  which  we  maintain  has  been  laid  aside  by  a  ^  ery  tri- 
fling proportion  of  the  Christian  world;  the  dissenters  from  Epis- 
copacy being  confined  to  the  western  Churclt,  in  which  Churcli  they 
sprang  up,  but  a  few  centuries  ago,  amount  now  to  a  most  insigni- 
ficant proportion  of  its  numbers. 

As  to  the  charge  of  illiberality,  let  it  be  recollected  that  tliis 
eomes  from  men  who  make  the  doctrine  of  absolute  decrees  almost 
fundamental  to  the  system  of  the  gospel,  representing  all  who  re- 
ject it  as  half  Christians,  Vi-hose  hearts  have  not  been  brought  to 
submit  to  the  sovereignty  of  God.  With  much  more  truth  might 
the  rejection  of  Episcopacy  be  placed  to  a  hatred  of  control,  which, 
disdains  the  idea  of  superiority,  loving  equality  in  the  ministry  be- 
cause it  is  flattering  to  the  pride  of  the  human  heart. 

When  the  Apostles  proclaimed  the  religion  of  Jesus,  declaring 
that  there  was  no  other  name  given  under  heaven  whereby  maa 
could  be  saved,  might  not  the  same  charge  of  bigotry  have  been 
preferred  against  them?  And  may  not  Episcopalians  contend  for 
that  system  of  government  which  the  Apostles  established,  and 
which  they  never  in\ested  man  with  the  power  to  change.  While 
we  maintain  that  Episcopacy  is  essential  to  the  Church  of  Christ, 
and  that  those  who  have  de])arted  from  it  have  no  spiritual  autho- 
rity whatever,  have  no  Ministers,  and  no  ordinances,  we  presume 
not  to  judge  of  their  motives,  or  to  determine  on  their  future  con- 
dition. Tliese  we  leave  to  the  eternal  Judge,  who  will  deal  justly  and 
graciously  with  all  men.  Where  the  true  fai'.h  is  professed,  and  where 
there  is  real  sincerity  of  heart,  we  believe  God  will  bestow  his  bless- 
ing. Indeed,  in  every  nation,  he  who  feareth  God,  and  worketh 
righteousness,  will  be  accepted  of  him.  At  the  same  time  it  is  tlic 
duty  of  every  man  to  enter  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  to  conform 
to  the  divinely  instituted  government  of  that  Cliui'ch.  Schism  is 
Ktill,  in  the  language  of  the  Apostle,  a  carnal  sin.  This  is  the 
only  way  in  which  charity  on  the  one  hand,  can  be  reconciled  witli 
a  sacred  adherence  to  Christian  truth  on  the  other. 

Do  you  ask  us  to  give  up  Episcojjacy  ?  What  reply  will  you  make 
to  the  Quaker,  who  accuses  you  of  bigotry  in  refusing  to  renounce 
the  ordinances  of  Baptism  and  the  liolV  Supper,  as  essential  parts 
of  the  Christian  dispensation?  Ta!;e  back,  then,  your  charge  of 
illiberality,  lest  it  recoil  upon  your  own  heads,  and  be  employed  to 
your  ov»n  destruction.  In  fact,  be  assured  it  is  not  from  what  mca 
term  bigotry  that  you  have  to  a])prei'.end  danger.  No  ;  it  is  a  loose 
ispirit,  tending  to  the  breaking  dov.n  of  all  government,  that  threat, 
ens  the  Christian  world  with  destruction.  Lay  preachers  will 
prove  }our  bane;  and  their  ijre'-mnption  is  ihe  genuine  result  of 


160  CYPRIAN.    No.  VI; 

those  loose  principles  on  whicli  your  departure  from  Episc6pacy  is^ 
grounded.  In  truth,  loose  principles  never  fail  to  return,  in  time, 
to  torment  their  inventors.  There  is  as  much  right  to  ofliciate 
without  any  commission,  as  with  one  derived  from  an  invalid 
authority;  and  the  reasoning  adopted  by  the  advocates  of  parity 
leads  directly  to  the  conclusion,  that  all  pretenders  to  a  spiritual  call 
may  enter  at  once,  Avithout  any  outward  commission,  upon  tlie  ad- 
ministration of  holy  things.  Thus  is  the  office  of  the  Priesthood 
laid  open  to  ignorant  and  self-sufficient  men,  who  bring  religion 
into  contempt,  causing  many  to  offend,  and  to  fall  from  the  faith. 

There  is  a  closer  union  than  is  generally  imagined  between  schism 
and  heresy.  The  Church  is  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth. 
It  is  the  candlestick,  the  doctrine  being  the  light  set  in  it.  With- 
out the  light,  the  candlestick  is  indeed  of  little  use ;  but  the  can- 
dlestick being  taken  away,  the  light  is  in  perpetual  danger  of  being 
tlirown  down  and  destroyed.  What  God  has  joined  together,  let 
no  man  put  asunder.  The  government  and  the  faith  have  been 
united  by  Christ,  and  they  can  never  continue  long  in  a  sound 
state  when  separated  from  each  other.  The  union  of  the  govern- 
ment and  the  faith  is  the  ordinance  of  Christ.  Their  separation 
has  been  the  rash  work  of  human  hands. 

I  now  leave  the  controversy.  My  object  in  the  beginning  was 
simply  to  correct  the  false  views  that  might  be  presented  by  thej 
Miscellaneous  writer.  This  I  trust  I  have  done.  It  would  take  me 
a  long  while  to  go  through  the  evidences  of  the  divine  institution  of 
Kpiscopacy.  Expecting  to  sail  in  a  few  days,  for  Europe,  I  am 
obliged  to  abandon  the  undertaking.  But  I  feel  perfectly  easy  in 
leaving  it  in  the  hands  of  Cyprian.  He  will  do  justice  to  the  sub- 
ject. 

^  Layman  of  the  E/iiscoJial  Church. 


For  the  ^'llbanij  CentmeL 
CYPRIAN.    No.  VI. 


L, 


(ET  us  now  leave  the  sacred  records,  and  examine  the  proof* 
>vhich  the  early  Fathers  aflbrd  us  of  the  existence  of  the  EjdscoJiaL 
form  of  government  in  the  primitive  Church. 

Here  the  advocates  of  parity  find  no  countenance  given  to  their 
principles.  The  early  Fathers  give  their  full,  clear,  and  unequivo- 
cal testimony  in  demonstration  of  the  point  which  we  wish  to  esta- 
blish. So  well  aware,  indeed,  arc  our  adversaries  of  the  powerful 
aid  which  we  derive  from  them,  that  they  have  been  compelled,  in 
self-defence,  to  resort  to  the  very  unjustiliable  expedient  of  making 
an  attempt  to  invalidate  their  authority,  to  diminish  the  weight  of 
their  testimony.  When  the  writings  ot  the  Fathers  give  even  the 
shadow  of  support  to  their  preconceived  opinions,  then,  truly,  they 
are  disposed  to  view  them  in  the  most  favourable  light.  I'.ut  no 
sooner  are  they  discovered  to  contain  any  thing  that  militates 
against  these  opinions,  than  they  are  no  longer  considered  as  au- 
thentic— they  are  no  longer  worthy  of  credit. 


CYPRIAN.    No.  VI.  161 

The  credibUitxj  of  the  early  Fathers,  as  tlie  reporters  of  matters  of 
Jhct,  cannot,  without  outraging  tlie  .soundest  principles  of  reason- 
ing, be  called  in  question.  They  are  men  of  undoubted  veracity. 
The  same  reasons  that  would  induce  us  to  reject  their  testimony, 
would  operate  with  equal  force  towards  the  exclusion  of  all  human 
testimony  as  a  legitimate  vehicle  for  the  conveyance  of  truth.  It 
is  true,  that  in  their  writings  are  contained  many  false  principles, 
many  erroneous  opinions,  much  illegitimate  reasoninp,-.  But  does 
this  consideration  tend,  in  the  smallest  degree,  to  diminish  the 
force  of  their  testimony  as  the  relaters  of  matters  of  fact  ?  Facts 
are  simple  and  unambiguous  inthcir  nature.  They  cannot  be  misun- 
derstood. In  the  relation  of  facts,  the  mo»t  illiteraic  are  not  sub- 
ject to  error  or  misapprehension.  The  early  Fathers,  then,  as  the 
reporters  of  facts,  cannot  be  consideied  as  liable  to  objection,  al- 
though in  matters  of  doctrine  and  opinion  they  are  not  always 
worthy  of  implicit  faith. 

But  what  can  these  objectors  intend  by  attempting  to  assail 
the  credibility  of  the  Fathers  ?  Do  they  not  know  that  the  same 
blow  that  will  lessen  our  confidence  in  tlie  testimony  of  the  priini- 
tive  Church,  will  proportionably  weaken  the  foundation  on  which 
Christianity  rests  ?  Is  it  not  upon  thefde/ity  of  the  primitive  Church 
that  we  must  depend  for  the  purity  and  integrity  of  the  canon  of 
scri/iturc  ?  Is  it  not  vipon  her  testimony  that  we  must  establish  the 
divine  institution  of  infant  bajuistv?  Is  it  not  upon  the  usage  of 
the  primitive  Church  that  we  justify  ourselves  for  the  observation 
of  the  sabbath  of  the  first  day  7  Let  tlicse  writers  beware  that  they 
wound  not  Christianity  in  a  vital  part,  by  aiming  a  blow  against  the 
authority  of  the  early  Fathers. 

It  cannot,  then,  be  questioned  that  the  Fathers  are  credible  rc- 
jiortcrs  of  matters  of  fact.  This  is  all  we  demand  as  essential  to 
the  accomplishment  of  our  present  purpose.  It  is  matter  of  fact 
that  there  existed  in  the  primitive  Church  three  distinct  orders  of 
the  Priesthood,  Bis/io/is,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons.  Does  the  testi- 
mony of  the  primitive  Fathers  go  towai'ds  the  estahlishment  of 
this  point?  If  it  does,  it  is  no  longer  a  subject  that  will  admit  of 
controversy. 

Let  us  begin  with  the  earliest  writers.  In  them  nothing  seems  to 
militate  against  Episcopacy  ;  every  thing  contributes  to  the  confir- 
mation of  it.  The  Miscellaneous  writer  lias,  indeed,  with  a  degree 
of  exultation  and  triumph,  challenged  us  to  produce  the  testimonies 
of  Clemens  Romanus  and  of  Polycarp.  What  was  the  object  he  had 
in  view,  when  he  thus,  with  an  air  of  defiance,  made  this  demand 
of  us?  Did  he  wish  to  impress  upon  the  minds  of  his  readers  the 
idea  that  Clemens  and  Polycarp  furnish  any  materials  towards 
rearing  the  superstructure  of  Presbyterian  discipline  ?  If  he  did,  he 
was  either  disingenuous,  or  ignorant  of  their  writings.  They  con- 
tain nothing  that  favours  Presbyterian  principles.  They  contain 
nothing  that  is  at  hostility  to  the  Episcopal  hierarchy.  It  is  true,  they 
contain  vei-y  little  that  bears  any  relation  to  this  subject.  It  is  on  this 
account  that  they  are  not  mentioned  by  us  in  the  investigation  of  it. 
Their  silence,  surely,  will  not  operate  as  an  argument  in  our  favour 
or  against  us.  It  happens,  however,  that  we  have  the  sentiments 
of  Polycarp  enlisted  on  our  side  bv  this  strong  and  conclusive  cir. 


162  CYPRIAN.    No.  VI. 

cumstance.  He  recommends  to  the  Churches,  to  which  he  ■Writes, 
the  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  Now,  in  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  the  three 
orders  of  Bishops,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons,  arc  distinctly  and  re- 
peatedly mentioned  as  the  standing  officers  of  the  Church.  Poly- 
carp,  therefore,  by  recommending  them  to  the  Churches,  gives 
his  sanction  to  the  doctrines  inculcated  in  them — he  gives  his  sanc- 
tion to  Episcopal  principles. 

I  have  said,  that  in  the  Epistles  of  Clemens  Romanus  and  of  Poly- 
earp,  there  is  nothing  decisive  to  be  met  with  on  the  subject  of  Church 
government.  Nevertheless,  even  in  them  wc  find  some  indistinct 
intimations  of  the  existence  of  the  Episcopal  discipline.  What  are 
we  to  think  of  that  passage  in  Clemens,  in  which  he  says,  "  Fot'' 
the  chit-f  Priest  has  his  proper  services;  to  the  Prier.ts  their 
proper  place  is  appointed,  and  to  the  Levitcs  appertain  their 
proper  ministries,  and  the  Layman  is  confined  within  the  bounds  of 
what  is  commanded  to  Laymen."  Here  the  intention  of  the  author 
and  the  connection  of  the  passage  show  that  Clemens  alludes  to  the 
orders  of  the  ministry  which  existed  in  the  Chuixh  of  Christ.  He, 
therefore,  asserts  three  distinct  orders.  What  are  Ave  to  think  of 
the  place  in  which  Clemens  asserts  that  the  "  Apostles  went  about 
preaching  through  countries  and  cities,  and  appointed  the  first  fruits 
of  their  conversions  to  be  Bishops  and  Deacons,"  8cc.  in  which  he 
clearly  proves  that  besides  the  Apostles,  the  highest  order  of  Mi- 
nisters, there  were  two  more  in  subordination  to  them  ?  These  are 
passages  in  Clemens  that  are*  strikingly  advantag-eous  to  our 
scheme. 

I>  regard  to  Polycarp  ;  besides  that  he  virtually  gives  his  assent 
to  all  that  is  contained  in  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  what  will  the 
advocates  of  parity  say  to  the  inscription  of  his  Epistle  which  runs 
thus:  "  Polycarp,  and  the  Presbyters  that  are  with  him,  to  the 
Church  of  God  which  is  at  Philippi."  Does  not  this  intimate  his 
Episco])al  pre-eminence  ?  Docs  not  this  slight  hint  (and  slight  we 
are  willing  to  admit  it  is)  tend  to  corroborate  that  strong  and  con- 
clusive evidence  which  avc  derive  from  the  Revelations  of  St.  John, 
and  from  the  testimony  of  ancient  writers,  in  proof  thnt  Polycarp 
was  Bishop  of  Smyrna  ?  Clemens  Romanus  and  Polycarp,  then,  fur- 
nish our  adversaries  with  no  wcaixjos  with  which  to  assail  us.  We 
acknowledge,  that  from  their  silence  on  this  to))ic,  wc  also  can  de- 
rive very  little  advantage  from  their  testimony.  But  the  fact  is, 
we  do  not  stand  in  need  of  their  assistance  on  this  point.  Their 
attention  was  occupied  by  other  subjects.  On  this  account  they  have 
but  slightly  glanced  at  this;  but  for  this  omission  of  it  by  them,  we 
are  amply  compensated  in  the  full,  the  explicit,  and  the  reiterated 
mention  niadc  of  it  by  Ignatius. 

Ignatius  lived  also  in  the  Apostolic  age.  He  suffered  martyrdom 
a  very  few  years  after  the  death  of  St.  John  the  Apostle.  Tha  Epis- 
tles that  have  been  handed  to  us  under  his  name,  have  all  the  marks 
of  genuineness  and  authenticity.  They  have  the  same  claims  to 
credit  as  any  of  tlie  jjroductions  of  that  early  age  of  the  Church. 
The  testimony  of  Ignatius  ought,  with  every  candid  reader,  to  be 
considered  as  sufficient  of  itself,  if  it  be  full  and  :^x])licit,  to  deter- 
mine thiscouli'oversy.  Let  us,  then,  collect  a  few  of  the  most  strik- 
ii:2  passages  of  his  Epistles  that  relate  to  this  subject.    To  detaiL 


CYPRIAN.    No.  VI,  165 

the  whole  of  what  he  has  advanced  on  it,  would  be  to  transcribe 
almost  the  half  of  what  he  has  written. 

If  Ignatius  had  written  his  Epistles  in  modern  times,  at  a  pe- 
riod when  this  question  was  agitated,  it  would  seem  as  if  he  could 
not  have  expressed  himself  in  terms  more  definite,  more  unequivo- 
cal and  decisive.     He  frequently  exhorts  the  people  to  yield  onedi- 
ence  to  their  spiritual  rulers,  and  the  Presbyters  and  Deacons  to  be 
in  subjection  to  their  Bishoj).     In  the  Epistle  to  the  Magiiesians, 
he  mentions  Damas  their  Bishop,  Bassus  and  Apolonius  their  Pres- 
byters, and  Sotion  their  Deacon.  He  praises  Sotion,  the  Deacon,  for 
his  su!)jection  to  the  Bishop  and  Presbyters,  and  exhorts  them  all 
to  reverence  their  Bishop.     In  his  Epistle  to  the  Trallians,  he 
speaks  of  their  Bishop  Polybius,  and  tells  them,  "  that  whilst  lliey 
live  in  subjection  to  their  Bisliop  as  to  Jesus  Christ,  they  seem  to 
live,  not  after  the  manner  of  men,  but  according  to  Jesus  Christ." 
*'  Let  nothing,  says  he,  be  done  v/lthout  the  Bishop,  even  as  ye 
now  practise."     Again.  "  Let  all  of  you  reverence  the  Deacons  as 
the  commandment  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Bishop  as  the  Son  of  the  Fa- 
ther, and  the  Presbyters  as  the  council  of  God  and  assembly  of  Apos- 
tles.    Without  these   no  Church  is  named."     In  anotlier  place  he 
says,  "  He  that  is  within  the  altar  is  pure :  But  whosoever  does 
any  thing  without  the  Bishop,  the  College  of  Presbyters,  and  the 
Deacons,  his  conscience  is  defiled."     In  his  Epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians,  he  thus  expresses  himself :  "Whosoever  is  without  the  al- 
tar is  deprived  of  the  bread  of  God.     Let  us  have  a  care  of  oppos- 
ing the  Bishop,  that  we  may  be  subject  to  God."     In  his  Epistle  to 
the  Philadelphians,  he  says,  "  Whosoever  belongs  to  God,  and  Je- 
sus Christ,  is  with  the  Bishop.     Endeavour,  therefore,  to  partake 
of  one  and  the  same  eucharist,  for  there  is  but  one  flesh  of  Christ, 
and  one  cup  in  the  union  of  his  blood,  and  one  altar;  as  there  is 
one  Bishop,  with  the  College  of  Presbyters,  and  my  fellow-servants 
the  Deacons."  In  another  place:  "When  I  was  with  you,"  says  he, 
*'  I  cried  out  and  spoke  with  a  loud  voice,  Adhere  to  the  Bishop,  the 
College  of  Presbyters,  and  the  I3eacons."     Again  ;   "  Do  nothing 
without  the  Bishop."  "  God,  he  tells  them,  will  forgive  the  schisma- 
ticks,  if  they  repent  and  turn  to  the  unity  of  God,  and  to  the  coun- 
cil of  the  Bishop."    In  his  Epistle  to  the  Church  of  Smyrna,  he  ex- 
horts them  thus:  "  Let  all  of  you  follow  the  Bishop,  as  Jesus  Christ 
docs  the  Father,  and  the  college  of  Presbyters  as  the  Apostles,  and 
reverence  the  Deacons  as  the  commandment  of  God."     Again  he 
says,  "  Let  that  eucharist  be  accounted  valid  which  is  ordered  by 
the  Bishop,  or  by  one  whom  he  appoints."     "  Without  the  Bishop 
it  is  lawful  neither  to  bjiptize  nor  to  celebrate  the  feast  of  charity." 
In  his  Epistle  to  Polycarp,  Bishop  of  Smyrna,  he  tells  them,  "Let 
nothing  be  done  without  your  approbation,"  8cc.     And  afterwards, 
addressing  the  people  of  that  place,  he  says,  "  May  my  life  be  a 
ransom  for  those  who  are  subject  to  the  Bishop,  Presbyters,  and 
Deacons,  and  may  I  have  my  portion  in  God  with  them." 

If  these  passages  of  Ignatius  are  not  sufficient  to  decide  this  con- 
troversy, then  1  must  confess  myself  inadequate  to  judge  of  the 
force  of  evidence  that  would  be  requisite  to  do  it.  Here  we  find  ex- 
pressly mentioned,  the  three  distinct  orders,  Bishofis,  Prcsbijtcra^ 
and  Deacons.    The  Biifio/is  are  obviously  conudeved  as  the  su- 


1«4  CYPRIAN.    No.  VII. 

fireme  officers.  All  authority  emanates  from  them.  The  Presby- 
ters and  Deacons  are  repeatedly  and  solemnly  admonished  to  yield 
obedience  to  them  as  paramount  officers  in  the  Church  of  Christ.  In 
his  Epistle  to  the  Trallians,he  exhorts  them  "  to  obey  their  Bishop, 
as  Christ  and  his  Apostles  had  commanded  them."  This  proves 
that  Ignatius  believed  that  the  order  of  Bishops  was  instituted  by 
Christ  and  his  Apostles.  Thus  does  Ignatius  establish  the  doctrine 
for  which  we  contend,  beyond  all  rational  contradiction.  And  let 
it  be  remarked,  that  the  peculiar  circumstances  that  attend  his  tes- 
timony are  calculated  to  give  it  additional  force.  He  suffered  mar- 
tyrdom four  or  five,  or  perhaps  eight  years  after  the  death  of  St, 
John.  Here,  then,  is  this  distinct  and  reiterated  mention  made  of 
our  three  orders  of  Ministers  within  eight  years  of  the  Apostolic 
age.  Will  any  one  believe  that  in  that  short  space  of  time,  the  hi- 
erarchy had  been  altered  from  Presbyterianism  to  Episcopacy  ? 

Nor  could  it  be  that  the  good  Ignatius  was  influenced  by  any  si- 
nister view  in  exalting  the  office  of  the  Bishop.  If  motives  of  per- 
sonal aggrandizement,  if  any  worldly  considerations  had  ever 
mingled  themselves  with  the  incentives  that  propelled  him  to  ac- 
tion, they  had,  surely,  at  this  time,  ceased  to  oj^erate.  He  was,  at 
the  period  in  which  his  Epistles  were  written,  under  the  prospect 
of  immediate  death.  He  was  just  about  to  appear  in  the  presence 
of  that  Master  whom  he  would  have  trembled  to  think  of,  had  he 
been  conscious  of  having  been  influenced  in  his  conduct ,by  any  un- 
worthy motives.  Would  he  have  proceeded  as  he  did,  exultingly, 
on  his  way  to  the  place  of  martyi'dom,  rejoicing  in  the  anticipation 
of  being  oflfered  up  for  his  Saviour,  had  he  made  the  iniquitous  at- 
tempt which  some  are  willing  to  ascribe  to  him,  to  overturn  the  go- 
vernment of  his  Church  ?  Would  he  not  rather  have  shrunk  back 
with  horror  from  the  prospect  of  appearing  in  the  presence  of 
that  Redeemer  whom  he  had  injured  and  insulted  in  his  body  the 
Church  ? 

We  defy  the  enemies  of  Episcopal  government  to  evade,  by  any 
shifts,  that  strong  and  irresistible  evidence  with  which  we  are  fur- 
nished from  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius.  They  have  never  yet  been 
able  to  refute  or  in  any  degree  invalidate  the  arguments  we  draw 
from  this  source,  and  they  never  will  be  able  to  refute  or  invalidate 
them.  CYPRIAN. 


A) 


For  the  Albany  Centinel. 
CYPRIAN.    No.  VII. 


-FTER  the  abundant  proof  in  demonstration  of  the  divine  in- 
stitution of  Episcopacy,  which  has  been  extracted  from  the  Epistles 
of  Ignatius,  ii  would  seem  to  be  superfluous  to  produce  the  testi- 
mony of  any  other  ancient  writer.  Nevertheless,  I  should  not  do 
justice  to  our  argument  should  I  stop  here.  The  whole  stream  of 
antiquity  flows  strongly  in  our  favour. 
Ikkneus,  the  celebrated  Bishop  of  Lyons  in  France,  who  was 


CYPRIAN.    No.  VII.  165 

n\e  disciple  of  St.  Polycarp,  gives  us  also  his  testimony  in  confirma- 
tion of  those  truths  which  had  been  delivered  by  Ignatius.  He 
asserts  the  uninterrupted  succession  of  Bishops  in  all  the  churches, 
to  the  period  in  Avhich  he  wrote.  He  urges  this  circumstance  as 
an  argument  by  which  to  refute  the  opinions  of  the  hei-eticks,  wlio 
had  arisen  in  his  day.  "  We,"  says  he,  "  can  reckon  up  those 
v/hom  the  Apostles  oi'dained  to  be  Bishops  in  the  several  churches, 
and  who  tliey  were  that  succeeded  them  down  to  our  own  times. 
And  had  the  Apostles  known  any  hidden  mysteries  which  they  im- 
parted to  none  but  the  perfect  (as  the  hereticks  pretend),  they 
T/ould  have  committed  them  lo  those  men,  to  whom  thsy  committed 
the  churches  themselves ;  for  they  desired  to  have  those  in  all 
things  perfect  and  unreprovable,  whom  they  left  to  be  their  suc- 
cessors, and  to  whom  they  committed  their  own  afiostolic  authority." 
He  then  adds,  "  because  it  would  be  endless  to  enumerate  the  suc- 
cessions of  Bishops  in  all  the  churches,  he  would  instance  in  that  of 
Rome.  He  enumerates  twelve  Bishops,  down  to  Elutherius,  who 
filled  the  Episcopal  chair  in  his  own  time."  This  is  the  testimony 
of  Ireneus. 

To  prove  the  same  point,  goes  the  testimony  of  Hegesippus,  of 
PoLYCRATEs,  and  Clemens  of  Alexandria,  who  flourished  at  the 
same  period.  Clemens  of  Alexandria  was  the  most  learned  man 
of  his  age.  Giving  a  summary  of  those  duties  which  concern 
Christians  in  general,  he  says,  "  that  there  are  other  precepts 
without  number,  which  concern  men  in  particular  capacities:  some 
which  relate  to  Presbyters,  others  which  belong  to  Bishops,  others 
respecting  Deacons,  and  others  which  concern  widows."  In  another 
place  he  tells  the  Presliyters  and  Deacons,  "  that  those  amongst 
them  who  both  teach  and  practise  what  our  Lord  hath  prescribed, 
although  they  be  not  promoted  to  the  chief  seat  (that  is,  the  Bishop's) 
here  on  earth,  sliall  at  last  sit  on  the  twenty-four  thrones,  spoken 
of  in  the  Revelations  of  St.  John,  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of 
Israel."  And  again  he  "  speaks  of  the  gradual  promotion  of 
Bishops,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons,  which  he  resembles  to  the  or- 
ders of  Angels." 

To  the  testimony  of  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  we  may  add  that  of 
Tertullian,  who  lived  nearly  at  the  same  time.  From  him  it 
appears  that  there  had  been  Bishops  settled  in  all  the  churches  of 
Africa,  from  the  times  of  the  Apostles  to  his  own.  In  his  Treatise 
on  Baptism,  he  says,  "  that  the  power  of  baptising  is  lodged  in  the 
Bisho])s,  and  that  it  may  also  be  exercised  by  Presbyters  and  Dea- 
cons, but  not  without  the  Bishop's  commission."  He  asserts  also, 
like  Ireneus,  the  uninterrupted  succession  of  Bishops  in  all  the 
churches  from  the  apostolic  age.  It  would  extend  my  numbers  to  a 
much  greater  length  than  I  would  wish,  were  I  to  dwell  long 
enough  on  these  articles,  to  give  full  force  to  the  evidence  we  can 
draw  from  each  of  the  Fathers ;  I  must,  therefore,  pass  rapidly 
from  one  to  another. 

Origen,  \A\o  was  the  scholar  of  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  and 
who  lived  in  the  last  of  the  second  and  beginning  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, lends  his  aid  also  in  confirmation  of  our  doctrine.  Speaking 
of  the  dei)ts  in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  he  fii-st  insists  on  the  debts  or 
duties,  "  coromon  to  all  Christiaus;"  and  tlieu  adds,  "  Besides 


i-QS  CYPRIAN.    No.  VII. 

these  general  debts,  there  is  a  debt  peculiar  to  widows  Avho  arc 
maintained  by  the  Church,  another  to  Deacons,  another  to  Presby- 
ters, and  another  to  Bishops,  which  is  the  greatest  of  all,  and  ex- 
acted by  the  Saviour  of  the  whole  Church,  who  will  severely  pun- 
ish the  non-payment  of  it."  Here  he  surely  asserts  that  Bishops 
are  made  by  Christ  himself  superior  to  Presbyters  and  Deacons. 

But  let  us  now  come  to  the  writings  of  Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carth- 
age, in  which  the  most  irresistible  light  is  thrown  on  this  subject, 
I  shall  give  only  a  few  quotations.  In  reasoning  against  Nov^tian, 
he  says,  "  that  there  being  only  one  Church,  and  one  Episcopacy  all 
the  world  over,  and  orthodox  and  pious  Bishops  being  already  regu- 
larly ordained  through  all  the  provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
and  in  every  city,  he  must  needs  be  a  schismatic  who  laboured  to 
set  up  false  Bishops  in  opposition  to  them."  He  affirms,  that  there 
cannot  be  more  than  one  Bisho}i  at  the  same  time  in  a  Church, 
lie  maintains,  that  Bishojis  are  of  our  Lord's  apfiointment^  and 
derive  their  office  by  succession  from  the  Apostles.  "  The  Church," 
he  says,  "  is  built  upon  the  Bishops,  and  all  acts  of  the  Church  ai'C 
governed  and  directed  by  them."  He  speaks  of  the  Christians  un- 
der his  chai-ge,  as  his  Clergy  and  people,  his  Presbyters  and  Dea- 
cons. He  advises  Rogatian,  one  of  his  contemporary  Bishops,  who 
had  desired  his  opinion  concerning  a  disobedient  Deacon,  "  that  if 
he  persisted  in  provoking  him,  he  should  exert  the  power  of  his 
dignity  (whereby  he  means  his  Episcopal  office),  and  either  depose 
him  from  his  office,  or  excommunicate  him."  He  complains  that 
some  of  his  Presbyters  had  arrogated  powers  to  which  they  had  no 
claim.  He  even  excommunicated  some  of  them  for  their  pre- 
sumption. He  expressly  asserts  the  authority  of  Bishops  over 
Priests  as  well  as  people.  He  charges  all  who  disobey  their  Bishop 
with  the  sin  of  schism.  In  short,  to  transcribe  all  that  St.  Cyprian 
has  said  in  our  favour  on  this  point,  would  be  to  write  a  volume. 

Thus  does  this  cloud  of  witnesses  give  their  united  testimonies  in 
proof  of  the  apostolic  institution  of  the  Episcopal  form  of  Church 
government.  And  Euskbius,  who  lived  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
third  and  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  has,  as  it  were, 
completed  the  evidence  we  derive  from  this  source.  He  ti*acesback 
the  succession  of  Bisliops  in  many  of  the  churches,  from  the  apos- 
tolic age  to  his  own  times.  Eusebius  had  the  advantage  of  all  the 
records  of  the  Church,  which  could  be  collected  by  the  aid  of  Con- 
stantine  the  Emperor  of  Rome.  He  lived  only  two  hundred  years 
after  the  Apostles.  He  traces  back  the  succession  of  Bishops  at 
Jerusalem  to  St.  James,  of  Rome  to  Linus,  of  Alexandria  to  St. 
Mark,  of  Antioch  to  Evodius,  of  Ephesus  to  Timothy,  of  Crete 
to  Titus. 

After  the  times  of  Eusebius,  that  the  Church  was  Episcopal, 
both  in  her  sentiments  and  in  her  form  of  government,  is  almost  as 
certain  as  tliat  the  sun  shone.  When  Aerius  appeared  in  the 
fourth  century,  and,  because  he  himself  was  disappointed  in  his  ex- 
pectation of  obtaining  the  office  of  a  Bishop,  of  which  he  was  am- 
bitious, endeavoured  to  sink  the  Bishops  to  a  level  with  Presbyters, 
he  met  with  the  general  indignation  and  abhorrence  of  the  Church, 
For  this  attempt  he  is  stigmatised  as  a  heretick  by  Epiphanius,  and 
his  new  opinicn  repreiiented  "  as  full  of  folly  and  madiiess,  beyoud 


CYPRIAN.    No.  VIT.  18f 

ivhat  humaif  nature  is  capable  of."  Could  the  Church,  then,  at  this 
period,  have  been  in  an\-  degree  verging  towards  these  equalizing 
principles  that  have  since  gained  admission  into  her  ? 

Thus  btrongl}'  does  the  current  of  antiquity  run  in  favour  of 
Episcopal  principles.  Tlie  advocates  of  parity  have  here,  no  eva- 
sion by  which  to  avoid  the  force  of  this  accumulated  evidence.  A 
few  of  the  Fathers  indeed,  they  have  endeavoured,  but  in  vain,  to 
enlist  in  their  service.  On  the  opinion  of  St.  Jerome  they  place 
their  principal  reliance.  Let  us,  then,  examine  for  a  moment,  the 
testimony  of  St.  Jerome,  and  see  whether  he  advances  any  thing 
that  will  operate  to  their  advantage. 

Let  it  be  remarked  that  St.  Jei-omc  flourished  in  the  last  of  the 
fourth  and  beginning  of  the  fifth  century.  His  testimony,  there- 
fore, supposing  it  to  militate  against  us,  could  not  be  estimated  as 
possessing  the  same  weight  as  that  of  those  writers  v,'ho  lived  nearer 
the  time  of  the  Apostles.  It  happens,  however,  that  St.  Jerome, 
so  far  from  having  advanced  any  thing  that  militates  against  our 
opinion,  has  said  a  great  deal  in  confirmation  of  it.  His  v/oi'ds  are 
these  :  *'  Having  observed  that  the  names  of  Bishop  and  Presbyter 
are  used  promiscuously  in  the  scriptures,  and  that  the  Apostles  call 
themselves  Presbyters,  he  concludes,  that  at  first  there  was  no  dis- 
tinction between  their  offices,  but  that  Apostle,  Bishop,  and  Pres- 
byter, were  only  different  names  for  the  saaie  thing  ;  and  that  the 
churches  v/ere  then  generally  governed  by  a  college  of  Presbyters, 
equal  in  rank  and  dignity  to  one  another.  Afterwards  divisions 
I)eing  occasioned  by  this  parity  among  Presbyters,  when  every  Pres- 
b)  ter  began  to  claim  as  his  own  particular  subjects  those  whom  he 
had  bai;)tised  ;  and  it  was  said  by  the  people,  '  I  am  of  Paul,  and  I 
of  Apollos,  and  I  of  Cejjhas ;'  to  remedy  this  evil,  it  was  decreed 
all  the  world  over,  that  one  of  tlie  Presbyters  in  every  Church 
should  be  set  over  the  rest,  and  peculiarly  called  Bishop,  and  that 
the  chief  care  of  the  Church  should  be  committed  to  him."  This 
is  the  wonderful  passage  on  which  the  advocates  of  ]>arity  place  so 
much  reliance,  and  which  they  represent  as  fraught  witli  such  ruin- 
ous consequences  to  the  cause  of  Episcopalians.  Let  us  analyze  it, 
and  we  shall  find  that  it  is  perfectly  harmless. 

In  the  first  place  it  will  be  observed,  that  St.  Jerome  merely  ha- 
aards  a  conjecture,  which  lie  thinks  probable  on  this  subject ;  and  as 
he,  as  well  as  ourselves,  in  matters  of  o/iinion  is  fallible,  we  are 
left  to  judge  of  the  degree  of  probability  on  which  his  conjecture 
vests.  But  St.  Jerorne  builds  this  conclusion  on  the  promiscuous 
use  of  the  terms  Apostle,  Bishop,  and  Presbyter  in  the  Scripture, 
"Which  has  already  been  shown  to  be  too  weak  a  foundation  to  sup- 
port its  superstructure.  Chrysostom  and  Tlieodorot  had  remarked 
the  same  commtmity  of  names,  but  they  did  not  think  themselves 
justified  to  draw  such  an  inference  from  it.  They  still  maintained 
that  there  was  a  difference  in  the  authority.^  which  was  possessed 
by  the  dijf'crtnt  orders  of  Ministers.  But  let  us  admit  that  all  that 
St.  Jerome  i,ays  on  this  subject  is  well  founded.  Let  us  admit  that 
his  premises  are  just,  his  conclusion  legitimate.  Let  us  admit  that 
first  there  was  no  distinction  between  the  iMinisters  of  tlie  Church 
of  Christ,  but  that  all  its  concerns  were  managed  solely  by  a  Col- 
Itge  of  Presbyters.    What  is  the  concluiion  thiit  can  be  drawn  froiu 


168  CYPRIAN.    No.VllI. 

these  concessions  •which  will  prove  in  any  degree  inimical  to  us? 
This  is  the  only  inference  wliich  we  shall  be  licensed  to  draw,  and 
"which  is  perfectly  innocuous,  as  it  relates  to  our  principles.  It 
will  follow,  that  although  there  was  but  one  order  of  Ministers  exist- 
ing in  the  beginning,  yet  the  Aliostles^  as  soon  as  men  began  to 
say,  "  I  am  of  Paul,  I  of  Apollos,  and  I  of  Cephas,"  and  dissention 
began  to  rise  from  this  source,  instituted  the  order  of  Bishops,  and 
invested  them  with  supreme  authority  in  the  Church.  Let  it  be 
noted,  that  this  is  sa.id  to  have  been  done  by  the  Ajiostlen.  The 
ox'der  of  Bishops  is,  then,  according  to  St.  Jerome,  of  apostolic  in- 
stitution. This  is  all  that  we  wish  to  prove.  That  the  Apostles 
had  a  reason  for  making  this  appointment  surely  ought  not  to  dimi- 
nish the  veneration  in  which  Ave  iiold  it.  The  same  imperious  rea- 
son will  subsist  in  every  age  of  the  Church. 

But  let  us  account  for  these  expressions  of  St.  Jerome  which  have 
even  the  appearance  of  giving  a  degree  of  countenance  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  our  adversaries.  He  was  highly  offended  at  the  conduct  of 
some  Deacons,  who,  in  consequence  of  the  wealth  they  had  ac- 
quired, acted  with  insolence  towards  their  Presbyters.  This  ex- 
cited the  resentment  of  the  venerable  Father ;  and  whilst  under  the 
influence  of  these  feelings,  what  wonder  that  in  order  to  humble 
the  Deacons  and  elevate  their  Presbyters,  he  should  speak  in  exag- 
gerated terms  of  the  dignity  of  the  latter  ?  On  such  an  occasion  it 
was  natural  to  run  into  this  extreme.  But  even  whilst  in  the  height 
of  his  zeal  for  the  Presbyters  he  is  almost  exalting  them  to  the 
Episcopal  dignity,  he  admits  that — in  the  business  of  ordination^ 
Bishofis  are  sufierior  to  Presbyters.  In  another  place  he  says,  that 
what  "  Aaron,  his  sons  and  the  Levites  were  in  the  temple,  such 
are  the  Bishops,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons  in  the  Church  of  Christ." 
St.  Jerome  then  says  nothing  that  will  contribute  to  give  counte- 
nance to  those  principles  which  are  maintained  by  the  advocates 
of  parity. 

I  might  go  through  the  other  Fathers  from  whom  they  have  en- 
deavoured to  derive  succour.  But  if  their  principal  support  fails 
them,  his  auxiliaries  can  do  them  but  little  service.  I  have  now  slightly 
glanced  at  the  support  which  we  derive  from  the  testimony  of  the 
primitive  Church.  I  leave  it  to  my  readers  to  judge  whether  with 
such  cA-idence  as  this  on  her  side,  the  Episcopal  Church  has  any 
thing  to  fear  from  the  assaults  of  her  adversaries. 

CYPRIAN. 


For  the  Albany  CentineL 

CYPRIAN.     No.  VIII. 

J.  HITS  I  have,  as  it  were,  barely  laid  open  to  view  the  fountains 
from  which  we  draw  our  evidence  in  favour  of  Episcopacy.  I  have 
displayed  only  the  corner  stones  of  that  strong  foundation  which 
supports  the  principles  of  Episcopalians.  I  have  not  been  able  to 
enter  into  a  minute  or  thorough  investigation  of  the  sul  ject  of 
Church  govern ment. 


CYPRIAN.   No,  VIII.  160 

It  must,  however,  be  permitted  me  to  indulge  the  hope,  that  even 
from  this  cursory  view  of  it,  it  will  appear,  that  the  Church  of 
Christ  was,  for  the  Jint J'ouj- hundred  ye,\rs,  Episcopal  \n  firin- 
ci/ile  and  in  /ircctice,  I  trust  it  has  been  demonstrated  to  tlie  sa- 
tisfaction of  every  unprejudiced  reader,  that  tlie  three  orders  of 
Bishops,  Frcsbytt-rs.,  and  Deacons,  which  ate,  at  this  time,  the 
standing  officers  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  were  instituted  by 
Christ  and  his  yl/iostles.  I  would  fain  hope  also,  that  from  this 
brief  examination  of  the  subject,  it  has  been  proved,  that  tlie 
Bishops  were  invested  by  tlie  Ai)ostles  with  su/ireinc  authority  m 
the  Church  as  their  successors ;  that  they  always  enjoyed  preroga- 
tives peculiar  to  themselves ;  that  they  aione  possessed  the  /loiver 
of  ordination  ;  and,  I  might  add  also,  the  privilege  of  administering 
the  sacred  rite  of  confirmation.  These  are  opinions  which  were 
held  in  the  Universal  Church  for  fifteen  hmidred  years.  It  is  oidy 
very  lately  that  they  have  been  called  in  question.  Calvin  pleaded 
necessity  for  attempting  to  establish  a  Church  in  which  the  E[>isco  ■ 
pate  formed  no  part  of  its  organization  ;  and  his  followers,  when 
that  plea  will  no  longer  serve  to  be  urged  in  their  justification  foi' 
continuing  their  separation  from  us,  ai'e  obliged  to  set  themselves 
to  work  to  fabricate  others.  Hence  all  tb.e  opposition  that  has  been 
,  made  to  Episcopacy. 

The  same  principles  and  the  same  discipline  which  prevailed  in 
tlie  primitive  Church,  prevailed  also  in  the  Church  of  Ejjgland 
ut  the  time  of  the  Reformation.  This  will  not  be  denied  by  any  one 
who  is  acquainted  wil-i  the  history  of  those  times.  We  are  pre- 
pared to  show,  by  indu!)itable  proof,  that  the  sentiments  of  most  of 
our  Refor.iiers  were  decidedly  Episcopal.  We  are  prepared  ta 
show  that  they  maintained  the  divine  right  oi  Bishops.  Bancroft 
was  by  no  means,  as  is  boldly  asserted  by  the  author  of  "  Miscel- 
lanies," the  first  who  bi-oached  these  opinions.  The  same  opinion?. 
were  entertained  by  Cranmek,  by  Hooper,  by  Parker,  by 
RiLsoN,  by  Whitgikt,  and  many  others.  It  is  not  to  be  won- 
dered at,  indeed,  if  at  this  period  of  reform,  some  of  our  Divines 
fluctuated  in  their  sentiments  on  these  points.  They  had,  as  yet, 
received  but  a  very  slight  examination.  So  also,  they  fluctuated  in 
their  sentiments  on  many  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christi- 
anity. But  as  soon  as  they  had  settled  themselves  permanently  ia 
those  great  principles  upon  which  the  Reformation  was  founded, 
these  Episcopal  oj)inior.s,  we  maintain,  were  connected  with  them. 

We  assert,  with  perfect  confidence  that  we  shall  not  be  contra- 
dicted, that  at  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  and  at  every  succeed- 
ing period,  the  great  body  of  the  most  learned  and  eminent  Divines 
of  the  Church  of  England  have  zealously  and  strenuously  contended 
for  the  doctrine  which  we  advocate.  Fortunately  for  the  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  Sta'es,  these  sound  piinciples  have  found 
amongst  her  sons  also,  able  and  successful  champions.  A  Sea-. 
BURY,  a  Chandler,  a  Bowdf.n,  andaMooHE,  have  zealously- 
come  forward  m  their  defence — havfj  attracted  to  themselves  signal 
honour,  whilst  thev  wnvc  ministering  the  most  important  service  to 
their  Church.  Th'i  judicious  and  amiable  Prelate  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, althouc;h  'iX  a  very  critical  and  liazardous  season,  he  was 
willing  to  relax  soxewhat  from  tiie  rigor  of  his  principles,  aud  b/ 


irO  CYPRIAN.    No.  VIU. 

Vtemporary  departure  from  them,  make  an  effort  to  save  his 
•Church  from  the  ruin  that  seemed  to  threaten  her — yet,  let  it  be 
remembered  that  he  has  never  abandoned  these  principles.  He 
still  adheres  to  them.  These  principles  and  no  others  are  main- 
tained by  the  author  of  the  "  Companion  for  the  Altar ;"  an  author 
■who,  in  this  early  effort,  has  afforded  his  Church  a  Blattering  pre- 
sage of  his  future  activity  and  usefulness  in  her  service,  and  whose 
talents  and  virtues  no  one  who  has  the  happiness  of  being  acquainted 
■yvith  him  will  liesitate  to  acknowledge.  Had  the  "  Miscellaneous 
■writer,"  instead  of  venting  his  resentment  against  the  "  Compa- 
nion for  the  Altar,"  and  the  "  Companion  for  the  Festivals  and 
Fasts,"  gone  to  the  Epistles  of  Ignatiua  and  the  writings  of  tlie 
primiti-ue  Fathtrs,  he  would  have  found  more  abundant  fuel  to  sup- 
port the  flame  of  his  indignation  and  to  enkindle  the  prejudices  and 
pas:  ions  of  his  readers.  He  might  have  drawn  from  them  a  much 
more  hideous  picture  of  what  he  estimates  as  uncharitableness, 
bigotry,  and  intolerance. 

The  principles  of  Episcopalians,  then,  those  principles  that  dis- 
tinguish them  from-  all  other  denominations  of  Christians,  are  sim- 
ply the  following.  They  maintain  that  the  three  orders  of  Minis- 
ters, Bishofis^  Presbyters^  and  Deacons^  are  of  divine  apfioiiit- 
inent.  They  maintain  that  the  order  of  BisAo/is,  the  only  lawful 
successors  of  the  Apostles,  have  alone,  through  all  ages,  been  invested 
with  the  /lower  of  transmitting,  the  sacerdotal  authority.  They 
maintain  that  no  minibtrations  in  holy  things  are  valid  unless  they 
are  performed  by  those  who  have  received  their  commission  from 
them.  In  other  words,  the  order  of  Bishojis  is  the  only  channel 
through  which  the  power  to  perform  sacerdotal  functions  can  be 
conveyed.  These  are  their  sentiments,  and  they  must  be  indulged 
in  entertaining  them.  They  wish  not  to  judge  or  offend  those  who 
do  not  think  as  they  do.  It  is  true,  there  are  some  consequences 
■which  may  be  deduced  from  these  principles  that  are  disagreeable 
to  the  fee  ings,  and  at  variance  with  the  opinions  of  other  denomina- 
tions of  Christians.  This  is  a  circumstance  which,  we  allow,  is 
much  to  be  lamented,  but  really  it  is  an  evil  which  we  cannot  reme- 
dy. If  our  doctrine  goes  to  unchurch  other  denominations,  it  is 
much  to  be  regretted.  We  cannot  consent  to  become  so  pliant  in 
our  principles  as  to  abandon  or  conceal  the  truth,  because  to  some 
persons  it  is  unpalatable. 

Whilst  we  profess  to  feel  a  most  sincere  and  ardent  attachment 
to  our  brethren  of  other  denominations,  we  must  be  permitted  to 
feel  greater  attachment,  to  the  institutions  of  our  Saviour.  We 
heartily  wish  that  our  sentiments  were  more  consonant  to  those  of 
our  fellow  Christians.  But  when  this  is  not  possible,  shall  the 
charge  of  being  bigotted,  prejudiced,  or  uncharitable,  frighten  us 
into  an  abandonment  of  them  ?  The  Apostles  must  have  been 
thought  to  be  men  excessively  bigotted  and  uncharitable  by  the  Phi- 
losophers of  Greece  and  Rome,  when  they  went  through  the  world 
proclaiming  that  none  but  those  who  believed  in  Christ  could  expect 
salvation  :  Yet  they  did  not  abandon  their  doctrine  on  this  account. 
We  will  follow  their  example.  No  clamour  that  can  be  raised 
against  us  shall  induce  us  to  shrink  from  declaring  the  whole  coun- 
sel  of  God.    We  wish  not  to  obtrude  our  sentiments  upon  the  atten- 


CYPRIAN.  No.  vm.  in 

tion  of  those  to  whom  they  are  obnoxious.  VVe  pretend  not  to  hurl 
anathemas  against  the  heads  of  those  Avho  differ  from  us  in  senti- 
ment. We  must,  however,  be  indulged  both  in  believing  and  in 
teaching  what  we  estimate  as  the  whole  truth  delivered  to  us  by 
revelation  from  God.  In  requiring  this,  we  exact  from  others  only 
the  same  privilege  which,  in  our  turn,  we  arc  willing  to  yield  them. 
Are  not  they  permitted  to  hold  the  distinguishing  tenets  of  their 
churches  without  molestation  from  us  ?  Do  we  attempt  to  interfere 
with  the  doctrines  they  inculcate,  with  the  principles  they  espouse  ? 
Is  not  the  doctrine  of  predestination,  and  all  those  minuter  points 
connected  with  it  and  springing  out  of  it,  perpetually  proclaimed 
from  their  pulpits  ?  And  yet  if  there  are  any  doctrines  uncharita- 
ble in  themselves — if  there  are  any  doctrines  that  would  excite  my 
zeal  to  extirpate  them  from  the  Church  of  Christ,  they  are  the 
doctrines  of  election  and  reprobation  as  taught  in  the  institutes  of 
Calvin.  Yet  other  men  differ  from  me  in  opinion  on  these  points. 
I  am  willing  they  should  do  so.  Our  difference  of  opinion  need  not 
diminish  our  charity  for  each  other. 

Such  is  the  Episcopal  Chuixh  at  this  time — such  would  she  always 
be  ;in  t/u's  country — such  has  she  ever  been  in  every  country.  She 
has  always  been  the  mildest,  the  most  tolerant  and  charitable  in  her 
spirit  of  any  Church  in  Christendom.  Let  it  not  be  imagined  that 
because  Episcopalians  believe  their  own  Church  the  only  true  one, 
on  this  account,  they  entertain  uncharitable  sentiments  of  their  bre- 
thren of  other  denominations.  They  utterly  disclaim  all  such  un- 
christian sentiments.  They  love,  they  trust,  as  they  should  do,  all 
who  profess  to  be  followers  of  that  Saviour  who  is  our  common 
hope.  We  trust  we  shall  at  last  meet  many  of  them  in  that  ha- 
ven where  we  would  be.  We  would  entreat  thcHi,  however,  we 
would  call  loudly  upon  them  to  examine  diligently  the  interesting 
subject  of  Church  government.  It  is  a  most  important  and  funda- 
mental one.  It  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  us  all  that  we  should 
be  in  the  true  Church,  in  the  Cbm-ch  which  was  founded  by  Christ 
and  his  Apostles.  In  no  other  place  can  we  obtain  a  title  to  the 
covenanted  mercy  of  God.  In  the  Episcopal  Church  we  are  assured 
that  we  are  in  perfect  security.  Her  enemies  themselves  cannot 
deny  that  lier  doctrines  are  pure,  her  ministrations  valid.  Every 
other  path  but  that  which  leads  through  her,  is,  to  say  the  least  of 
it,  extremely  perilous.  Those  Avho  are  in  involuntary  or  unavoida- 
ble ignorance  on  this  topic,  po  doubt,  will  be  excused  by  God.  But 
let  it  be  remembered,  that  the  same  indulgence  cannot  be  supposed 
to  be  extended  to  those  who,  when  they  have  been  admitted  to  the 
light,  have  wilfully  and  obstinately  closed  their  eyes  against  it. 

I  have  now  done  ;  I  leave  what  has  been  said  to  the  consideration 
of  our  readers.  If  any  of  them,  after  an  impartial  examination 
of  the  subject,  have  come  to  a  different  conclusion  from  myself,  I 
have  no  disposition  to  disturb  them  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  opinion. 
It  is  to  be  hoped  that  nothing  which  has  been  advanced  in  this  con- 
troversy, will  beget  any  uncharitable  sentiments  in  the  breasts  of 
the  members  of  diff"event  denominations  of  Christian  ^,  either  in  this 
place  or  in  any  other  place  to  which  these  papers  miy  li^ve  ex- 
tended. I  hope  we  shall  still  continue  as  hitherto,  to  love  each, 
other  Ukc  brethren. 


172  VINDEX.    No.  I. 

For  myself,  I  profess  to  feel  a  sincere  and  ardent  charity  for  all 
denominations  of  Christians.  For  the  many  learned  and  eminent 
gentlemen  who  attend  the  ministrations  of  the  sanctuary  amongst 
them,  I  feel  tlie  highest  respect  and  esteem.  In  all  that  I  have  ad- 
vanced in  this  discussion,  1  have  scrupulously  endeavoured  to  avoid 
•wounding  their  feelings  or  those  of  their  people.  If  I  have  failed, 
in  doing  so,  I  beg  them  to  excuse  it.  It  has  originated,  if  it  exists, 
in  zeal  for  the  support  of  what  I  have  been  wont  to  estimate  as 
truth,  and  not  in  a  want  of  respect  or  affection  for  them.  For  the 
author  of  "  Miscellanies"  I  profess  to  entertain  similar  senti- 
ments. I  blame  him  for  his  mode  of  attacking  the  Episcopal 
Church.  Let  him  assail  us  with  arguments  without  any  mixture  of 
abuse,  and  we  will  hear  him  patiently.  Nevertheless,  as  he  also 
may  be  supposed  to  have  felt  a  laudable  zeal  in  a  cause  which  he 
thought  defensible,  and  as  I  am  willing  to  extend  to  others  the  same 
indulgence  which  I  wish  them  to  show  to  myself,  I  am  disposed  to 
excuse  him.  With  pleasure  I  avow  that  I  entertain  for  him  senti- 
ments of  high  respect  and  esteem,  and  look  forward  to  the  period 
when  a  more  intimate  acquaintance  with  him,  which  I  should  be 
happy  to  cultivate,  will  teach  me  more  justly  to  appreciate  his 
talents  and  his  virtues.  In  the  mean  time,  in  return  for  the  r,ood 
wishes  he  has  bestowed  upon  his  opponents,  I  could  most  heartily 
wish  him  a  g-ood  Episcoliulian, 

CYPRIAN. 


For  the  Albany  CcntincL 

VINDEX.    No.  I. 

To  the  Editors  of  the  Albany  CentineL 
Gentlemen, 


I 


N  the  following  letter,  v/hich  I  request  yo\i  to  insert  in  your  paper, 
may  he  easily  discerned  the  style  and  spirit  of  a  pamphlet  from 
which  the  author  of  Miscellanies,  in  his  late  attack  on  Episcopacy, 
has  made  copious  extracts  ;  and  which  he  attributes  to  the  Rt.  Rev. 
Prelate  who  presides  o^xr  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Pennsylvania. 
Tn  this  point  of  view,  the  letter  may  be  considered  as  an  important 
document,  illustrating  the  meaning  and  tendency  of  tlie  pamphlet 
in  question.     It  obviously  suggests  the  following  remarks. 

The  author  of  the  Miscellanies  has  represented  Bishop  White 
(whom  he  states  is  the  author  of  the  pamphlet)  as  regarding  the 
Episcopal  succession  as  a  thingunnecessary,  or  of  little  consequence. 
But,  on  the  contrary,  the  author  of  the  pamphlet,  as  stated  in  the 
following  letter,  proposed  to  include  in  his  plan  a  general  apfirnhc- 
iion  of  Episcopacy,  and  a  determination  to  procure  the  succesnion 
an  soon  as  convenient.  He  only  justified  a  temporary  dispensation 
with  the  succession  on  the  plea  of  necessity — a  plea,  which  it  is 
presun'ied  will  justify  a  dispensation  with  the  sftcraments  of  the 
Church,  which  are  to  be  considered  as  necessary  to  salvation  only 
"  nvheJi  they  can  be  had." 


VINDEX.    No.  I.  ir3 

The  author  of  the  Miscellanies  has  also  attempted  to  enlist  Bi- 
bhop  White,  in  the  same  ranks  with  himsielf,  as  the  advocate  of  Pi-es- 
i)ytery.  Tlie  following  letter  expressly  denies  that  any  reasoning 
fi-iendly  to  the  can  e  of  Presbytery  appears  in  the  pamphlet. 

But  the  most  important  part  of  the  subsequent  communication, 
is  a  correction  of  i-everal  misrepresentations,  in  the  numbers  of  tlie 
Miscellanies,  of  the  sentiments  of  Bishop  White  (considered  as  the 
author  of  the  pamphlet)  re;ative  to  Episcopacy.  The  pamphlet 
professed  to  give  a  representatif-n  of  the  opinion  in  favour  of 
t^iiscopacy.  And  this  representation  of  the  K/iidCoJialian  ojiiniony 
the  following  letter  states  "  ought,  in  reason,  to  be  understood  as  the 
author's  oivn."  Now,  according  to  this  ophiion,  i/ic  Ejihcolml 
jioiver  was  /edged  by  Jcmm  Chriat  nuith  his  ^i/iostles,  and  by  ihern. 
communicated  to  the  sujierior  order  of' the  iiihiistry  now  culled  Bi^ 
iho/is.  Let  the  reader  peruse  the  foi.lowing  letter  and  tlie  extract 
from  the  pamphlet  subjoined,  and  then  judge  whether  the  author 
of  Miscellanies  will  be  justified  in  considei-ing  a  person  who  places 
Episcopacy  on  sucli  a  ground  as  liostile  to  its  divine  claims.  The 
Miscehaneous  author  indeed,  imputes  to  Bishop  White,  whom  he 
considers  as  the  author  of  the  pamphlet,  what  is  stated  there  as 
the  opinion  of  the  opponents  of  Episcopacy;  who  "  conceived"  it 
to  be  an  "  innovation,"  v/hich  took  place,  according  to  certain  Di- 
vines quoted  in  Ncal's  history  of  the  Puritans,  in  the  second  or  third 
century.  Now,  though  the  author  of  the  pamphlet  expressly  speaks 
of  the  "  improbability"  of  such  an  innovation,  and  quotes  from 
Neal  merely  to  prove  the  time  when,  according  to  the  opponents 
of  Episcopacy,  the  innovation  took  place,  the  Miscellaneous  writer 
considers  this  very  opinion,  Avhich  the  pamplilet  states  to  be  imjiro- 
bai)lc^  as  the  sentiment  of  its  author!  But  let  the  reader  peruse  the 
letter  and  the  subjoined  exti'act,  and  judge  for  himself. 

It  was  not  the  object  of  the  pamphlet  to  exhi!)it  a  defence  of  Epis- 
copacj'.  Its  author  was  studiously  desirous  to  avoid  controversy. 
Its  style,  therefore,  is  not  the  style  of  argument  or  controversy, 
pointed  and  positive.  It  is  mild  and  moderate,  suited  to  the  critical 
juncture  of  the  times,  and  to  the  conciliating  plan  which  the  author 
Lad  in  view,  the  uniting  of  all  descriptions  of  Church  people,  in  a 
plan  to  preserve  their  C!iin-ch  till  the  succession  could  be  obtained. 

On  the  whole,  it  appears,  that  if  Bishop  White  is  to  be  considered 
as  the  author  of  the  pamphlet,  no  imputation  of  being  hostile  to  the 
claims  of  Episcopacy  can  be  justly  charged  on  him.  In  the  tract 
ascribed  to  him,  under  the  representation  of  the  Episcopalian  opi- 
nion, he  maintained  as  his  o;wz,  that  the  Ehhojis  derived  their 
£fnsco/}al  flower  from  tlie  Ajiostles^  in  wh(nT»  it  was  lodged  by  Je- 
ans Christ.  He  only  pleaded  for  a  tcm/iorary  departure  from  Epis- 
copacy, on  the  ground  of  necessity.  The  Efuscojial  succession  was 
to  be  obtained  as  speedily  as  possible. 

In  conformity  with  tliese  opinions,  Bishop  Wliite  v/as  one  of  the 
most  active  and  zealous  in  the  measures  that  were  pursued  to  ob- 
tain the  succession.  He  left  his  family,  his  friends,  and  his  country, 
and  exposed  himself,  at  a  late  period  of  life,  to  the  danjjersofa 
voyage  across  tlic  Atlantic,  to  obtain  for  his  Church  that  succession 
which  was  necessary  to  constitute  her  an  Apostolic  Church.  His 
ittichment  to  the  truly  prijnitivp  institutions  of  his  Church  is  wclj 


174,  AN  EPISCOPALIAN. 

known,  and  has  been  often  manifested.  And  as  the  Miscellaneous 
authoi'  is  willing  to  take  Bishop  White  as  his  advocate,  let  him  sub- 
sci-ibe  to  the  following  sentiments,  advanced  by  the  Bishop  in  hia 
sermon  before  the  last  General  Convention  of  the  Episcopal  Church  : 
"  It  seemed  good  to  the  Apostles,  to  appoint  some  of  these  with 
a  sufiereminent  commission,  of  which  there  were  instances  in  Timo-. 
thy  and  Titus  ;  and,  the  persons  so  appointed,  liave  handed  down 
their  commission  through  the  diflferent  ages  of  the  Church.  This 
is  the  originally  constituted  order.  And,  therefore,  without  judging 
those  who  have  departed  from  it,  we  may  nuish  and  fir  ay  for  its  7-e- 
storation  in  all  Christian  Churches ;  as  one  mean  for  the  restoring 
of  godly  discipline,  for  the  having  of  our  '  hearts  knit  together  in 
love,'  and  '  that  we  may  with  one  heart  and  one  mouth,  glorify 
God."  The  Miscellaneous  author  may  be  assured,  that  if  he  will 
permit  Bishop  White,  as  his  advocate,  to  use  the  above  language, 
he  will  not  be  suspected  of  being  attached  to  Presbyterian  govern- 
ment, which  has  uniformly  been  considered,  since  its  introduction 
in  the  sixteenth  century,  as  a  departure  from  the  "  originally  con-, 
stituted  order." 

The  author  of  Miscellanies  is  incorrect  in  his  assertion,  that 
Bishop  Provost  furnished  facts  for  the  pamphlet  to  the  author  of  it. 
At  the  time  of  publication,  Bishop  Provost  was  not  personally 
acquainted  with  the  author,  had  never  corresponded  with  him,  nor 
did  he  know  any  thing  of  the  pamphlet  till  he  saw  it  in  print. 

VINDEX. 


To  the  Author  of  the  Publications  entitled,  "  Miscellanies*'* 

SIR, 

XN  some  of  your  late  publications,  you  have  given  copious  extract* 
from  an  anonymous  pamphlet,  published  in  1782,  and  entitled, 
"  The  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  in  the  United  States  consi- 
dered." Being  possessed  of  a  copy  of  this  pamphlet,  I  have  com- 
pared it  with  your  publications ;  and  I  address  to  you  the  i-esult  of 
the  comparison. 

You  seem  to  have  done  no  injustice  to  the  author,  in  represent- 
ing him  as  asserting  the  lav/fuhiesj  of  a  iemfiorary  departure  from 
Episcopacy  in  cases  of  necessity) ;  and  as  believing  that  a  case  of 
this  description  existed  at  the  time  of  the  publication.  So  far  as 
your  extracts  apply  to  these  points,  you  have  not  given  him  any 
reason  to  complain.  But  in  some  other  particulat's,  which  1  pro- 
ceed to  mention,  I  take  the  liberty  of  representing  to  you,  that 
youi"  statements  are  materially  (though,  as  I  trust,  unintentionally) 
incorrect. 

The  prominent  proposal  of  the  pamphlet,  and  as  such  printed  in 
larger  letters  than  the  rest,  is,  '»  to  include  in  the  prof loscd  form  of 
gox'ernjnnU,  a  ge?2eral  aJiproba'Jon  of  lipiscojtacy,  and  a  declara- 
tion of  an  intention  to  jirocure  the  succession  as  soon  as  convent-' 
ently  may  be  ;  but,  in  the  mean  time,  to  carry  the  plan  into  eftect, 
without  waiting  for  the  successicr.."    In  your  nineteenth  number, 


AN  EPISCOPALIAN.  175 

you  take  np  the  latter  part  of  his  proposal,  rrspccting  the  immedi. 
ate  execution,  without  any  notice  of  the  former  j^art,  which  seems 
essential  to  the  exhibiting  of  the  design  of  the  publication.  The 
effect  of  the  thus  separating  of  two  nmtters  intended  to  be  com- 
bined, appears  in  sundry  passages  of  your  Miscellanies. 

In  your  twentieth  number  you  say,  "  No  Presbyterian  could  rea- 
son more  to  the  jjurpose  ;"  meaning  than  the  author  of  the  pamph- 
let. To  wliat  purpose  ?  It  must  have  been  intended  by  you,  as  the 
connection  shows,  to  dispensing  with  Ejiiacojial  ordination;  as  in 
the  instances  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth.  Now,  thei-e  is  no  rea- 
soning in  the  pamphlet  to  that  i)urpose.  There  is  a  mere  state- 
ment of  the  fact ;  which  seems  to  have  been  designed  to  apply  in 
this  way — That  if  such  a  dispensation  was  allowable,  in  consider- 
ation of  circumstances  existing  at  the  time  ;  still  more  might  the 
like  be  allowed  in  an  exigency  much  greater.  On  perusing  the 
pamphlet,  I  do  not  find  a  sentiment  which  I  can  suppose  an  anti- 
Episcopalian  writer  would  produce  in  favour  of  a  parity  in  tlie  Mi- 
nistry. 

What  you  say  in  your  twenty-first  number,  concerning  the  state- 
ment in  the  pamphlet,  ^f  the  grounds  on  which  Episcopacy  is  de- 
fended, appears  to  me  to  convey  a  representation  of  the  sentiments 
oftheaullior  the.  very  re-verse  of  those  which  are  obvious  on  the 
face  of  this  part  of  the  production. 

For,  first,  Of  a  long  paragraph,  comprehending  that  statement, 
you  quote  a  very  small  part  only  ;  although  the  rest  is  neces- 
sary for  the  exhibiting  of  tl\e  author's  viev/s  of  the  grounds  of  the 
argument  for  Episcopacy. 

Secondly,  In  the  stress  laid  by  you  on  the  expressions,  "  they 
think,"  and  "  as  some  conceive"  (although  the  latter  applies  not 
to  Episcopalian  disputants,  but  to  their  opponents),  you  seem  to 
intimate  that  such  "  thinking"  and  "  conceiving"  is  accompanied 
in  the  author's  mind  by  doubt :  an  intimatioii  for  which  there  will 
seem  no  cause,  when  it  is  considered,  that  the  statement  of  the 
Episcopalian  opinion  is  introduced  not  in  an  argumentative  man- 
ner, but  in  reference  to  an  object  very  different  from  that  of  the 
comparative  merits  of  Episcopacy  and  Presbytery.  To  the  purpose 
of  the  author  of  the  pamphlet,  it  Avas  sufficient  that  Episcopalians 
•'thought"  as  he  defines;  whether  they  thought  rightly  or  not  on 
the  question  between  them  and  the  anti-Episcopalians. 

Thirdly,  Althoup;h  by  contrasting  what  you  approve  of  as  mode' 
ration  in  the  pamj^lilet,  with  what  you  censure  as  positiveness  in 
another  performance,  you  seem  to  imply  that  tlie  Episcopalian  opi- 
nion, as  stated  by  the  former,  was  agreeable  to  the  sentiments  of 
the  author;  yet,  in  another  sentence,  you  seem  to  believe  that  theop- 
posite  was  intended  to  be  intimated.  If  you  designed  to  convey  this 
idea,  there  is  no  warrant  for  it  in  the  performance ;  v/hich  ought, 
in  reason,  to  be  undei-stood  as  conveying,  under  the  representation 
of  the  Efiiscofialian  ofiiniony  the  author's  ovjn ;  although  in  a  way 
the  least  likely  to  ht^  construed  into  a  challenge  to  a  theological  dis- 
putation, wliich  might  perhaps  be  unpeasant  to  the  author  at  any 
time,  but  for  whicli,  I  will  venture  to  say,  he  could  not  have  found 
so  nnacaaonable  a  time  as  that  of  the  publication  of  this  performance^ 
As  on  this  part  only  of  your  productions  1  am  at  a  loss,  in  sons' 


175  AX  EPISCOPALIAN. 

respects,  for  your  meaning,  I  shall  subjoin  the  entire  paragraph  of 
the  pamphlet,  thus  giving  an  oj^portunity  to  any  one  so  disposed,  to 
compare  it  with  what  appears  in  your  pubhcation. 

In  your  same  twenty-iirst  number,  after  repeating  a  quotation  of  tho 
parapliiei  from  Bishop  Hoadly,  you  represent  him  and  the  author  of 
the  pamphlet  as  declaring,  ■^vhat  I  cannotfindeither  of  them  declare, 
that  three  orders  are  not  of  divine  afi/iointment ;  and  then  you  go 
on  to  state  wliat  you  suppose  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  autlior  of  the 
pamphlet,  in  regard  to  the  extraordinary  powers  of  the  Apostles. 
This  subject  seems  to  me  quite  foreign  to  the  quotation  referred  to, 
■which  simply  states  tlie  distinction  between  a  fact,  and  an  o/iinion 
connected  witli  it  in  the  minds  of  some.  Bishop  Hoadly  thought 
that  Dr.  Calaniy  might  admit  the  former,  and  yet  reject  the  latter,' 
In  regard  to  the  views  of  the  author  of  the  pamphlet,  he  seems  to 
have  adduced  tlie  quotation  in  evidence  of  a  distinction  between 
Apostolic  practice,  and  a  matter  of  indispensable  requisition. 

In  your  twenty-second  number  you  deliver,  as  the  o/iinion  of  th6 
author  oj  the  pum/ih!et,  what  he  had  cited  as  the  ojiinion  of  others  j 
put  in  contrast  witli  what  should  be  supposed  his  own.  In  stating 
the  Episcopalian  opinion,  he  had  occasion  to  refer,  for  the  sake  of 
precision,  to  that  of  tlieir  opponents,  ii>  regard  to  the  date  of  the 
introduction  of  Episcopacy  ;  and  tlien,  in  order  to  guard  (as  would 
seem)  against  the  charge  of  misrepresentation  from  that  quarter, 
he  gives,  in  a  note,  a  quotation  from  Neal's  history  of  the  Puritans, 
containing  the  opinion  of  those  called  the  "  Smectymnuan  Divines," 
"who  are  there  cited  not  as  evidefices  of  the  truth  of  the  case,  but 
of  the  sense  of  their  coimnunion.  The  part  of  your  production 
alluded  to,  is  where  you  quote  the  pamphlet  as  asserting  that  Epis- 
copacy had  its  origin  in  the  second  or  third  century;  for  the  cor- 
recting of  which  statement,  I  refer  to  tlie  extract  which  I  have 
already  promised  to  subjoin. 

In  your  twent)-third  number  you  assert,  that  therea?^oningsof  the 
pamphlet  are  as  strong  for  a  total  as  for  a  temfiorary  departure 
from  Episcopacy*  I  cannot  see  any  ground  for  this  assertion,  ex- 
cept on  your  misapprehension  of  the  design  of  the  quotation  from 
Mr.  Neal.  Surely,  with  a  man  who  believes  that  there  have  been 
three  orders  from  the  beginning,  the  necessity  of  a  temporary  de- 
parture dees  not  invohe  that  of  a  fnal  abrogation  ;  and  if  so,  it  is 
not  correct  to  represent  the  reasonings  of  the  pamphlet  as  applying 
to  both  these  points  alike. 

In  the  same  number  you  lament,  that  the  government  of  the 
Episcopal  Chtirch  was  not  founded  on  tlie  plan  represented  in  the 
pamphlet.  If  it  had  occurred  to  you  to  have  compared  the  date  of 
the  pamphlet  with  that  of  an  important  event  which  took  place 
about  the  same  time,  you  would  have  perceived,  X\M\t  Xhs.  ground 
on  which  the  plea  for  a  teinporury  departure  rested,  was  soon  done 
away.  The  pamphlet  ;s  dated  in  1782  ;  the  prelin>inaries  of  peace 
were  signed  at  Paris,  in  the  latter  end  of  autumn  in  the  same  year; 
and  tidings  of  them  reached  this  country  early  in  1783  ;  it  having 
been  for  some  time  kncnvn  that  negociations  were  begun.  After 
this,  the  necessity  ceased,  and  the  author's  persisting  in  his  pro- 
posal would  hive  been  little  to  the  credit  of  his  sincerity. 

You  have  liberally  declared.  Sir,  that  if  you  have  misunderstood 


BY  THE  AUTHOR  OF  MISCELLANIES.    No.  I.    l7r 

the  author,  you  will,  on  the  least  notice,  correct  it.  This  anony- 
mous notice  can  have  no  further  claim  on  the  promise  than  in  pro- 
portion as  your  own  judgment  may  be  convinced  of  your  supposed 
mistakes:  but  in  proportion  to  such  conviction,  you  will  doubtless 
think  yourself  pledged  to  an  acknowledgment. 

AN  EPISCOPALIAN. 

The  extract  (referred  to  in  the  foregoing  letter)  from  thft 
jpamphlet  quoted  by  the  author  of  Miscellanies. 

"  Let  us  take  a  view  of  the  ground  on  which  the  authority  of 
£/iisco/iacy  is  asserted. 

"  The  advocates  for  this  form  maintain  that  there  having  been 
an  E/iisco/ial /lower  lodged  by  Jesus  Christ  with  his  J/iostlcsy  and 
by  them  exercised  generally  in  person,  but  sometimes  by  delegation, 
AS  in  the  instances  of  Timothy  and  Titus;  the  same  nvas  conveyed 
by  them  before  their  decease  to  one  pastor  in  each  Church,  which 
generally  comprehended  all  the  Christians  in  a  city  and  a  conve- 
nient surrounding  district.  Thus  were  created  the  ajiostolical  suc- 
cessors, who,  on  account  of  their  settled  residence,  are  called  Bi- 
shops by  restraint;  whereas  the  Apostles  themselves  were  Bishops 
at  large,  exercising  Episcopal  power  over  all  the  Churches,  except 
in  the  case  of  St.  James,  who,  from  the  beginning,  was  Bishop  of  Je- 
rusalem. From  this  time  the  word  "  Episcopos,"  used  in  the  New 
Testament  indiscriminately  with  the  word  "  Presbuteros"  (pai'ti- 
cularly  in  the  twentieth  chapter  of  the  Acts,  where  the  same  per- 
sons are  called  "  Episcopci"  and  "  Presbuteroi")  became  a/2/jro- 
priated  to  the  superior  order  of  Ministers.  That  the  Apostles 
"were  thus  succeeded  by  an  order  of  Ministers  superior  to  pastors  in 
general.  Episcopalians  think  they  prove  by  the  testimonies  of  the 
ancient  Fathers,  and  from  the  improbability  that  so  great  an  inno- 
vation (as  some  conceive  it)  could  have  found  general  and  peace- 
able possession  in  the  second  or  third  century,  when  Episcopacy  is 
on  both  sides  acknowledged  to  have  been  prevalent.*  The  argu- 
ment is  here  concisely  stated  ;  but  (as  is  believed)  impartially;  the 
manner  in  which  the  subject  is  handled  by  Mr.  Hooker  and  Bishop 
Hoadly,  being  particularly  kept  in  view." 


I 


For  the  Albany  Centinel, 
fiy  the  Author  of  "  Miscellanies."    No.  I. 


HAVE  published  nothing  of  late  on  the  subject  of  Church  go- 
vernment. Besides  an  apprehension  that  the  readers  were  tired 
of  the  controversy,  I  was  willing  that  my  opponents  should  have 
every  advantage,  as  well  as  that  what  had  been  already  written  by 
me,  appeared  to  be  more  than  sufBcient. 

•  "  The  original  of  the  order  of  Bishops  was  from  the  Presbyters  choos- 
ing one  from  among  themselves  to  be  a  stated  President  in  their  assemblies, 
in  the  second  or  third  century.  Smectymnuan  Divmes,  ai  quoted  in 
Neal's  history  of  the  Puritans,  Anno.  1640." 

3  A 


378      BY  THE  AUTHOR  OF  MISCELLANIES.    No.  I. 

.  My  assailants  have  been  numerous.  They  began  early,  and  havo 
continued  long.  Probably  an  end  of  tliem  is  not  yet  seen.  If  pub- 
lishing much  is  any  proof,  they  certainly  have  the  best  of  the  argu« 
ment.  Many,  however,  will  be  of  opinion,  that  it  shows  both  their 
alarm  and  their  weakness.  Somewhat  similar  was  the  uproar 
■which  happened  at  Ephesus,  ■when  Paul  preached  there,  among 
those  who  "  made  silver  shrines  for  Diana."  Those  of  the  occu- 
pation, huvhig  been  stirred  up,  "  all  v/ith  one  voice  about  the  space 
of  two  hours  cried  out,  Great  is  Diana  of  the  Ephesians."  Th« 
Episcopal  writers  have  complained  of  the  controversy  being  ma- 
naged in  a  newspaper  ;  but  they  have  freely  used  the  mode,  and 
have  been  allowed  every  indulgence. 

Whatever  have  been  the  defects  on  my  part,  they  are  all  to  be 
charged  to  myself.  Except  a  few  Greek  quotations  which  a  learned 
friend  sent  me  at  my  request,  from  books  which  were  not  within 
my  reach,  I  have  received  no  counsel  nor  assistance.  Auxiliaries 
were  not  necessary.  There  was  no  danger  of  my  cause  sufTering, 
tliough  numbers  set  themselves  in  array  against  me.  Ingeniou& 
and  long-winded  as  they  may  be,  they  cannot  change  the  nature  ot 
truth,  nor  deprive  mankind  of  common  sense. 

As  the  pieces  came  out,  now  from  "  A  Layman,"  then  from 
"  Cyprian,"  and  thirdly  from  "  Detector,"  I  laid  them  aside,  in- 
tending when  they  had  done,  to  take  such  notice  of  them  as  they 
seemed  to  deserve.  "  A  Layman"  has  sailed  for  Europe,  after 
giving  a  solemn  commission  and  charge  to  "  Cyprian"  to  have  a 
care  of  the  Church  ;  so  that  the  latter  must  be  held  accountable  for 
the  mistakes  and  misrepresentations  of  the  former.  "  Cyprian,"  to 
do  him  justice,  has  been  industrious,  and  has  now  breathed  his  last. 
As  to  "  Detector,"  he  may,  for  any  thing  known  to  me,  have  ran 
clear  off,  after  having  discharged  his  double-barrelled-gun.  ° 

I'hc  attentive  reader  will  have  remarked,  that  many  things 
which  I  have  advanced,  have  been  either  evaded,  or  not  answered 
by  my  opponents ;  that  they  have  introduced  new  matter ;  and  that 
I  am  obliged  more  than  ever  to  act  upon  the  defensive.  Had  they 
not  denied  the  validity  of  any  ordination  except  that  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  and  of  their  own  ;  asserted  that  ordinances  ad- 
ministered by  any  except  those  thus  commissioned,  were  "  nuga- 
tory and  invalid;"  unchurched  all  other  denominations,  and  re- 
presented them  as  in  a  worse  condition  than  the  heathen  world,  I 
should  never  have  written  at  all.  Or  could  I  have  brought  then> 
to  retract  these  sentiments,  and  to  maintain  such  Episcopacy  as 
Dr.  White,  the  present  Bishop  in  Pennsylvania,  maintains,  I  should 
not  now  write.  I  hope  the  public  will  indulge  me  in  a  short  reply, 
which  the  conduct  of  my  opponents  has  forced  from  me.  I  promise 
to  remark  only  on  a  few  of  the  principal  things,  in  as  few  words  as 
possible  ;  and  that,  on  a  proper  intimation  from  the  printer,  I  shall 
entirely  desist,  and  seek,  if  so  inclined,  another  mode  of  publica- 
tion. 

I  begin  with  the  concluding  number  of  *'  Cyprian."  He  alleges 
that  Episcopacy  prevailed  "  in  the  universal  Church  for  fifteen 
hundred  years  ;"  that  "  it  is  only  very  lately  that  it  has  been  called 
in  question  ;"  and  tliat  *'  Calvin  pied  necessity  for  attempting  to 
establish  a  Church"  on  a  diflerent  plan.    This  argument  is  mucli 


fiY  THE  AUTHOR  OF  MISCELLANIES.    No.  L      179 

fittongcr  in  favour  of  Popery  than  of  Episcopacy.  During  the  far 
grcattr  part  of  fifteen  hundred  years  the  corruptions  of  Popery  had 
been  introduced ;  and,  during  half  that  time,  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
was  supreme,  was  both  a  temporal  and  spiritual  prince.  Even  in 
the  Apostolic  age  the  spirit  of  Popery  began  to  show  itself.  "  The 
mystery  of  iniquity,"  says  the  Apostle,  "  doth  already  work  :  only 
he  who  now  letteth  will  let,  until  lie  be  taken  out  of  the  way.  And 
then  shall  that  wicked  be  revealed."  Popery  appeared  eariy,  and 
increased  gradually  to  its  monstrous  size.  No  age  was  wholly  pure; 
either  in  doctrine  or  government  after  the  death  of  the  Apostles.* 
Nothing  can,  with  certainty,  be  depended  on  but  what  is  found  in  the 
holy  scriptures.  They  are  the  only  and  the  perfect  rule  of  our  faith 
and  practice.  What  the  necessity  was  which  Calvin  pled,  I  know  not. 
Whatever  it  was,  "  Cyprian"  acknowledges  that  the  *'  plea  will  no 
longer  serve  to  be  urged,"  and  that  we  "  are  obliged  to  set  our- 
selves to  work  to  fabricate  others."  Hence,  says  he,  "  all  the  op- 
position that  has  been  made  to  Episcopacy."  This  is  a  notable  rea- 
iion  for  opposition.  Relieved  from  one  necessity,  we  are  under 
another  necessity  to  find  reasons  for  our  conduct;  and  not  finding 
any  ready  made,  vicfabHcate  them.  How  modest  and  charitable! 
I  see  no  necessity  in  the  case,  but  the  preservation  of  a  good  con- 
science ;  nor  do  I  believe  that  the  non-conformists,  the  dissen- 
ters in  Britain,  and  Calvin  himself,  ever  pled  any  other.  Some  of 
them  might  have  been  spiritual  lords,  with  the  title  of  "  Right 
Reverend  Father  in  God,"  if  not  of  "  Your  Grace,"  with  suffici- 
ent incomes  to  support  their  dignities.  Surely  here  was  no  appa- 
rent necessity  to  refuse  a  compliance,  had  there  not  been  a  secret 
pionitor  within  to  forbid  them. 

I  suppose  that  Cyprian  means  by  Episcopacy  being  called  in 
question  "  very  lately,"  at  the  Reformation.  He  should  have  re- 
membered, that  there  was  no  opportunity  of  effectually  opposing  it 

•  Tliese  are  sweeping  assertions  ind»ied  !  They  would  deprive  the  Chris- 
tian Church  of  that  powerful  .sui)port  v/hich  her  fundamental  doctrines 
derive  from  tlicir  having  lic-cii  universally  received  by  the  great  body  of 
Christians  in  all  ages.  Many  learncil  Divinea  have  bestowed  no  small  la- 
bour to  prove  that  the  Cliristians  of  the  early  ages  were  univeraaily  Trin- 
ituriant.  But,  accordiuf';  i:o  the  author  of  Miscellanies,  they  bestowed  their 
talents  and  learning  tu  a  purjjose  worse  tlian  in  vain  ;  for  the  proof  of  the 
fact,  for  v.liich  they  have  contended,  would,  in  his  judgment,  be  a  much 
stronger  argument  in  favour  of  Popery  than  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ; 
since  the  errors  of  Pojjcry  appeared  in  the  apostolic  age! 

Shameful  is  the  sophistry  by  which  the  author  of  Miscellanies  endeavours 
to  evade  the  force  of  tlu;  argument  in  favour  of  Ej)iscopacy,  founded  on  its 
universal  reception  in  all  ages  of  the  Church.  If  he  mean  to  assert  that  the 
errors  of  Poj^ery  generally  prevailed  in  the  Church  in  the  first  ages,  he  admits 
what  is  C'jutradicted  by  the  records  of  those  ages,  and  what  no  Frote.:tavt 
rver  before  admitted.  If  his  meaning  merely  is  that  some  of  the  errors  of 
Popery  made  tlieir  appearance  in  the  early  ages,  but  did  not  generally  pervade 
the  Church  for  several  centuries,  the  parallel  he  attempts  to  run  between 
I'opery  and  Epi-scopacy  will  totally  fail:  for  Episcopacy  was  received  in  the 
Churcli — xeinpcr,  ubique,  et  ab  omnibus,  at  all  limes,  in  all  places,  and 
by  all  C/^istiam.  Episcopacy  thus  possesses  what  the  Church  has  always 
juiitly  deemed  a  certain  evidence  of  apostolic  iiKtitution.  Ed. 


180      BY  THE  AUTHOR  OF  MISCELLANIES.    No.  I. 

until  that  time.*  He  proceeds  to  say,  "  the  same  principles  aad 
the  same  discipline  which  prevailed  in  the  primitive  Church,  pre- 
vailed also  in  the  Church  of  England  at  the  time  of  the  Refoi'ma- 
tion."  If  he  mean  to  extend  the  primitive  Church  through  the 
space  of  fifteen  hundred  years,  I  admit  his  assertion  ;  but  if  he  mean 
the  days  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  formation  of  the  Church  imme- 
diately after  their  decease,  I  utterly  deny  it.  Episcopacy  in  Eng- 
land has  never  been  what  it  was  in  the  purest  age.  It  is  tainted 
■with  the  corruptions  which  very  soon  took  place.  An  order  of 
Bishops,  as  distinct  from  Presbyters,  was  not  known  in  the  Church 
until  a  considerable  time  after  the  Apostles.f  Bishop  White  has 
given  the  true  origin  of  Bishops  in  the  Episcoj)al  Church.  "  In  the 
early  ages  of  the  Church,"  says  he,  "  it  was  customary  to  debate 
and  determine  in  a  general  concourse  of  all  Christians  in  the  same 
city ;  among  whom  the  Bishop  was  no  more  than  President."^ 
Again  :  "  The  original  of  the  order  of  Bishops  was  from  the  Pres- 
byters choosing  one  from  among  themselves  to  be  a  stated  Presi- 
dent in  their  assemblies,  in  the  second  or  third  century."(|  Expe- 
rience shov/s  how  natural  and  easy  it  is  for  men  of  ambition  and  ta- 
lents to  establish  a  pre-eminence  in  this  way.  There  needs  be  no 
%vonder  that  the  presiding  Presbyters  would  soon  claim  to  be  a  dis- 
tinct order;  and  that,  if  the  practice  was  universal,  the  claim 
•would  likewise  become  universal.§  This  is  the  great  objection  to 
such  a  plan. 

I  defer  some  important  remarks  on  "  Cyprian's"  valedictory  ad- 
dress until  the  next  paper. 

*  What !  Before  the  lapse  of  three  centuries,  every  fundamental  doc- 
trine of  the  Gospel  had  been  denied  by  the  fearless  heretics  of  those  ages  ; 
and  yet  no  virtuous  son  of  the  Church  could  be  found  to  arraign  the  law- 
less power  of  the  Bishops,  those  usurping  lords  in  God's  heritage !  Amidst 
all  the  heresies  and  schisms  that  at  various  periods  agitated  the  Church, 
Episcopacy  maintained  its  ground,  firm  in  the  confidence  and  universal  re- 
ception of  Christians ;  and  no  opportunity  occurred  of  opposing  this 
"  corrupt  and  injurious  usurpation,"  till  the  fifteenth  century  !  May  not 
the  language  which  the  author  of  Miscellanies  applies  to  the  advocates 
of  Episcopacy  be  retorted  on  himself!  "  Into  what  vagaries  and  absur- 
dities will  men  sometimes  run  to  maintain  a  cause  which  they  have  incon- 
siderately espoused!"  £e?. 

f  The  author  of  Miscellanies,  it  seems,  has  ascertained  a  fact  of  which 
the  most  learned  opponents  of  Episcopacy  were  ignorant.  He  asserts 
that  Episcopacy  did  not  prevail  "  until  a  considerable  time  after  the  Apos- 
tles." BocHART  acknowledges  that  it  prevailed  "  paulo  post  Apostolos," 
"  a  little  time  after  the  Apostles."  And  Blondel,  another  learned  op- 
ponent of  Episcopacy,  acknowledges  that  it  universally  prevailed  about 
forty  years  after  the  apostolic  age.  Kd. 

\  Admitting  this  statement,  it  does  no*-  follow  that  the  Bishop  did  not 
possess  the  exclusive  power  of  ordination.  Ed. 

II  The  reader  will  recollect  that  this  is  not  Bishop  White's  opinion,  but 
the  opinion  of  certain  dissenting  Divines,  which  he  quotes  from  Neal's 
history  of  the  Puritans.  Ed. 

^  But  how  does  it  haj)pen  that  this  "  claim'^was  not  resisted;  that  we 
find  no  record  of  this  fundamental  change  from  Presbytery  to  Episcopacy 
in  the  primitive  historians  ?  Ed. 


I 


(     181     ) 

For  the  Albany  Centinel. 
By  the  Author  of  "  Miscellanies."    No.  II. 


AM  diverted  from  my  remarks  on  "  Cyprian"  by  a  late  publi- 
cation under  the  signature  of  "  An  Episcopalian,"  prefaced  by  a 
letter  signed  "  Vindex."  I  am  blamed  by  both  for  unfairness  in  my 
quotations  from  Bishop  White's  pamphlet,  and  ascribing  to  him 
sentiments  which  he  does  not  hold.  Were  the  pamphlet  in  the 
hands  of  the  readers,  or  could  they  turn  to  the  numerous  and  large 
quotations  which  have  l>een  made  in  proper  connection,  no  answer 
from  me  would  be  necessary  j  but  as  the  niatter  stands,  it  requires 
immediate  notice. 

It  is  asserted  by  "  Vindex,''  that  I  have  "  I'epresented  Bish<^ 
While  as  regarding  the  Episcopal  succession  as  a  thing  unnecessary, 
or  of  little  consequemce  ;"  that  I  have  "  attempted  to  enlist  him  as 
the  advocate  of  Presbytery ;"  and  have  insinuated  that  he  was 
*'  hostile  to  the  claims  of  Episcopacy."  These  things  are  not  correct.* 
I  contended  only  for  what  "  Vindex"  himself  acknowledges;  that 
the  Bishop  "  justified  a  temporary  dispensation  with  the  succession 
on  the  plea  of  necessity ;"  that  he  "  pleaded  for  a  temporary  de- 
parture from  Episcopacy  on  the  ground  of  necessity.''  This,  no 
doubt,  is  the  intention  and  drift  of  his  pamphlet,  and  it  is  enough 
for  me.  At  the  same  time,  he  speaks  of  Episcopacy  as  a  "  cere- 
fnony"  when  compared  with  the  administration  of  divine  ordi- 
pances — "  a  disputed  point,  an4  that  relating  only  to  externals"-— 
*'  a  matter  of  external  order,"  He  fully  and  plainly  gives  up  the 
potion  of  divine  right  and  uninterrupted  succession.  Can  any 
thing  be  more  express  than  the  following  paragraph,  which  I  quoted 
before  I  "  Now,  if  even  those  who  hold  Episcopacy  to  be  of  divine 
right,  conceive  the  obligation  to  it,  to  be  not  binding,  when  that 
idea  would  be  destructive  of  public  worship,  much  more  must  they 
think  so,  who,  indeed,  venerate  and  prefer  that  form,  as  the  most 
ancient  and  eligible,  but  without  any  idea  of  divine  right  in  the 
case.  This  the  author  believes  to  be  the  sentiment  of  the  great  body 
of  Episcopalians  in  America ;  in  which  resjiect  they  have  in  their 
ifavour  unquestionably  the  sense  of  tl^e  Church  of  England,  and,  ai 
he  believes,  the  opinions  of  her  most  distinguished  prelates  for  piety, 
virtue,  and  abilities."  The  words  in  italic  are  so  marked  in  the 
pamphlet. 

I  never  believed,  nor  said  that  Bishop  Wliite  was  a  Presbyterian, 
I  rejoice  that  he  is  an  Episcopalian  ;  because  he  is  an  ornament  and 
a  blessing  to  his  Church.  With  such  an  Episcopalian,  it  is  easy 
*'  to  keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace."  How  dif- 
ferent the  sentiments  of  the  author  of  "  A  Companion  for  the  Fes- 
tivals," &c.  quoted  likewise  before.  He  declares,  that  "  it  is  ne- 
cessary that  the  Episcopal  succession,  from  the  days  of  tlie  Apos- 
tles, should  be  uninterrupted'' — that  "  its  interruption  seems  in- 

*  Did  not  the  author  of  Miscellanies,  in  his  twentieth  number,  expressly 
assert  concerninp;  Bishop  White,  that  "  no  Presbvrerian  could  argue  more 
10  tl;c  purpose  ;"  F.d. 


182     BY  THE  AUTHOR  OF  MISCELLANIES.    No.  II. 

deed,  morally  impossib;e"™that  "  if  Presbyters^  or  Deacons.,  or 
Laymen,  should  assume  the  power  of  ordination,  the  authority  of 
the  persons  orda'ned  by  them  would  rest  on  human  institution,  and 
therefore  in  the  Church,  where  a  divine  commission  is  necessary  to 
the'exercise  of  the  rainistr)^,  their  acts  would  be  nugatory  and  in- 
valid;" yea,  "  that  we  can  no  more  lay  aside  Efiiscofiacy^  and  yet 
continue  the  Christian  Priesthood,  than  we  can  alter  the  terms  of 
sa'vation,  and  yet  be  in  covenant  with  God."  Nothing  can  be  more 
evident  than  the  opposition  of  this  author  to  the  Bishop.*  The  sen- 
timents of  the  former  are  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  plan  pro- 
posed by  the  latter. 

Does  "  Vindex,"  when  he  says  that  the  plea  of  necessity  "  will 
justify  a  dispensation  with  the  sacraments  of  the  Church,  which 
are  to  be  considered  as  necessary  to  salvation  only,  when  they  can. 
be  had"  mean,  that  Bishop  White  intended  that  Ministers  ordained 
in  the  manner  which  he  proposed,  should  not  administer  the  sacra- 
ments ?  If  so,  he  is  chargeable  with  gross  misrepresentation.  The 
words  of  the  Bishop  are,  "  Are  the  acknowledged  ordinances  of 
Christ's  holy  religion  to  be  suspended  for  years,  perhaps  as  long  as 
the  present  generation  shall  continue,  out  of  delicacy  to  a  disputed 
point,  and  that  relating  only  to  externals?"  Beyond  all  dispute, 
the  design  of  the  Bishop  was,  that  the  Ministers  ordained  on  his 
plan  should  have  equal  authority  to  perform  every  office  with  those 
ordained  by  the  Bishop  of  London.  Their  ministrations  were  to  be 
considered  as  valid  and  efficacious ;  whatever  the  author  of  "  A 
Companion  for  the  Festivals,"  See.  has  said  about  divine  righty  and 
the  necessity  of  uninterrufited  succession.-^  The  Bishop,  says 
*'  Vindex,"  "  had  in  view  the  uniting  of  all  descriptions  of  Church 
people,  in  a  plan  to  preserve  their  Church  till  the  succession  could 
be  obtained."  Is  it  not  a  strange  way  X.o  fire  serve  a  Church  by  rfe- 
stroying  it  ?  For  this  must  have  been  the  effect,  if  no  ordination 
is  valid,  and  no  ordinances  effectual  to  salvation,  but  those  derived 
from  Bishops  of  the  Episcopal  Churcli.l  It  is  acknowledged  that 
the  view  of  the  Bishop  was  "  to  preserve  their  Cliurch,"  and  that, 
*'  as  long  as  the  present  generation  shall  continue ;"  and  yet  there 
•would  be  no  Ministers  duly  authorized,  and  all  the  ordinances  would 
be  "  nugatory  and  invalid ;"  a  Church  without  an  uninterrupted 
Buccession,  and  yet  "  its  interruption  seems  morally  impossible  l"|f 


*  The  author  of  "  A  Companion  for  the  Festivals"  had  no  reference,  ia 
the  above  remarks,  to  those  cases  of  necessity,  in  which  some  Episcopalians 
think  that  Presbyterian  ordination  may  be  admitted.  Ed. 

f  Ordmances  administered  by  those  Episcopally  ordained,  are  "  valid  and 
efficacious"  in  all  cases;  while,  even  on  the  plan  attributed  to  Bishop 
White,  a  case  of  necessity  alone  was  to  render  "  valid  and  efficacious,"  or- 
dinances administered  by  those  who  had  not  Episcopal  ordination.     £d. 

I  These  were  maintained  as  general  propositions.  No  reference  was  had 
to  cases  of  necessity,  which  do  not  fall  under  general  rules.  Ed. 

II  The  author  of  Miscellanies  affords  room  here  to  apply  to  him  the 
charges  of  ignorance  or  disingenuousncss.  He  ought  to  have  known  that, 
on  the  principles  of  Episcopalians,  the  Succession  which  is  presei-ved  in  the 
order  of  Bi/bops.  is  not  interrupted  by  any  particular  Church  throwing  off 
this  succession.  The  Succesiicr.  ciill  rciiuiin:  in  the  Bisbopt  of  other  churches; 


BY  THE  AUTHOR  OF  MISCELLANIES.    No.  HI.    183 

Into  what  vagaries  and  absurdities  will  men  sometimes  run  to  main- 
tain a  cause  which  they  have  inconsiderately  espoused ! 

I  have  not  seen  Bishop  White's  sermon  before  the  last  General 
Convention.  What  "  Vindex"  has  quoted  from  it,  does  not  alter 
what  is  contained  in  the  pamphlet.*  The  Bishop,  doubtless,  prefers 
the  Episcopal  mode  of  government.  I  observe  that  he  admits  that 
there  are  other  "  Christian  churches"  besides  his  own ;  which  is 
more  than  the  Episcopal  Priests  in  this  State  admit. 

Whether  I  am  incorrect  or  not,  in  asserting  that  Dr.  Provost 
"  supplied  some  facts  for  the  pamphlet,"  will  appear  in  time.  If  I 
have  been  mistaken  or  misinformed,  I  shall  freely  acknowledge  it; 
though  wholly  immaterial  in  the  argument.  A  line  from  either  Dr. 
Provost  or  Dr.  White  would  receive  full  credit,  and  give  ample 
satisfaction.  I  know  my  informer  ;  and  my  present  impression  is, 
that  the  facts,  or  the  communication  where  to  find  them,  did  not 
arrive  in  season. 

I  shall,  in  my  next,  examine  what  is  said  by  "  An  Episcopalian,'* 
whom  "  Vindex"  has  so  ceremoniously  introduced  to  me.  I  foresee 
that  we  will  part,  he  an  Efiiacofmlian^  and  I  a  Presbyterian  ;  but, 
I  hope,  in  mutual  good  humour,  and  with  mutual  good  wishes. 


For  the  Albany  Centinel. 

By  the  Author  of^^  Misceli  anies.'*    No.  III. 

TO  «  AN  EPISCOPALIAN." 
Sir, 

J.  HOUGH  my  remarks  on  "  Vindex,"  published  in  the  last  Ccji^ 
tmel,  might  suffice  as  an  answer  to  your  letter,  yet  I  tiiink  it  my 
duty  to  give  you  a  particular  and  respectful  attention.  "  Vindex" 
says  that  your  "  letter  may  be  considered  as  an  important  docu- 
ment, illustrating  the  meaning  and  tendency  of  the  pamphlet  in 
question."  Why  it  should  be  considered  more  important  than  what 
has  hitherto  appeai'ed,  I  cannot  conceive,  unless  it  was  written  by 
Bishop  White  himself.  He  may  be  allowed  to  know  the  meaning 
of  his  pamphlet  better  than  any  other  man ;  and  yet  he  (if  the 
Bishop)  could  not  be  permitted  to  tell  his  meaning,  except  his  com- 
mentary was  accompanied  with  a  commentary  by  "  Vindex." 
You  do  me  justice  in  alleging  that  my  mistakes  must  have  been 

and  any  Church  which  may  have  thrown  it  ofF,  may  obtain  it  from  those 
Churches  which  have  preserved  it.  These  truths  are  familiar  to  all  who 
have  examined,  with  moderate  attention,  the  subject  of  Church  government. 
And  if  the  author  of  Miscellanies  was  not  ii^norant  of  them,  how  disinge- 
ntiout  is  his  attempt  to  fix  the  imputation  of  absurdity  and  inconsistency 
on  the  author  of  the  "  Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts  1"         £d. 

*  No  indeed;  because  even  in  the  pamphlet  the  author  maintained  that 
jfesus  Chtist  lodged  an  Episcopal pfrirer  witb  bis  Apostles,  •a.iicb  vim  by  tbein 
comtnunicated  to  tho  superior  order  of  the  ininistrj/,  called  Bishops.  See  the 
•pinion  of  tiie  author  of  this  parriphlct,  at  p.  \77  of  this  collection.    £d. 


184     BY  THE  AUTHOR  OF  MISCELLANIES.    No.  Ifl.' 

♦'  unintentional,"  and  that  if  convinced  of  any,  "  I  will  think  my-* 
self  pledged  to  an  acknowledgment."  I  trust  that  I  would  not 
make  an  unfair  quotation,  or  be  guilty  of  misrepresenting  an  au- 
thor's sentiments,  for  a  much  greater  reward  than  to  be  made  the 
Pope  of  Rome,  or  Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  The  numbers  of 
*'  MisQellanies,"  to  which  you  refer,  and  the  pamphlet,  are  now 
before  me. 

You  complain,  that  in  my  nineteenth  number,  "  I  take  up  the 
latter  part  of  the  Bishop's  proposal,  without  any  notice  of  the  for- 
mer part."  In  that  number,  I  give  a  general  and  just  account  of 
the  plan.  When  I  begin,  professedly,  to  quote,  it  is  at  the  begin- 
ning of  a  paragraph  which  runs,  "  The  other  part  of  the  propo- 
sal," &c.  This  implies  that  there  is  a  preceding  part,  I  wished) 
and  once  thought  to  have  published  the  whole  pamphlet.  What 
injustice  is  done  to  the  Bishop  here  ?  "  Not  to  wait  for  the  succes- 
sion," is  the  very  spirit  of  his  plan.  Not  to  wait,  implies,  that  he 
would  have  preferred  the  succession,  could  it  have  been  obtained  ; 
and  the  necessity  of  constituting  a  Church  without  it,  is  explicitly 
avowed.  To  remove,  however,  the  least  ground  of  complaint,  1 
here  give  the  plan  as  it  stands  in  the  first  place  where  it  is  intro» 
duced :  "  The  conduct  meant  to  be  recommended  as  founded  on 
the  preceding  sentiments,  is  to  include  in  the  proposed  frame  of  go* 
vernment  a  general  approbation  of  Episcopacy,  and  a  declaration 
of  an  intention  to  procure  the  succession  as  soon  as  conveniently 
may  be ;  but  in  the  mean  time,  to  carry  the  plan  into  effect  without 
waiting  for  the  succession." 

I  observe  that  your  introducer  and  commentator,  "  Vindex,"  has 
changed  the  words  "  a  declaration  of  an  intention"  into  "  a  deter- 
viination."  This  is  admissible  in  a  paraphrase ;  for  I  verily  be- 
lieve that  the  Bishop's  declaration  is  the  same  with  his  determN 
nation.  You  will  remember,  at  the  same  time,  that  a  Church  was 
to  be  constituted,  and  that  immediately,  "  without  waiting  for  the 
succession."     Take  these  woi'ds  aAvay,  and  there  is  no  plan  at  all^ 

You  remark,  that  in  my  twentieth  number  I  say  "  No  Presbyterian 
could  reason  more  to  the  purpose  than  Bishop  White;"  and  you 
ask,  "  To  what  purpose  ?"  You  have  answered  the  question  your-» 
self.  It  is  that  Episcopal  ordination  has  been,  and  may  be  dis- 
pensed with  in  certain  cases.  To  say  that  the  Bishop  has  given  "  a 
mere  statement  of  the  fact,"  and  that  "  there  is  no  reasoning,"  looks 
very  like  an  evasion.  Why  are  the  instances  in  the  reign  of  Queen 
Elizabeth  mentioned  ?  You  acknowledge  that  they  "  seem  to  have 
been  designed  to  apply  in  this  way;"  that  is,  for  dispensing  with 
Episcopal  ordination  ;  and  that  the  Bishop  argues  in  favour  of  "  an 
exigency  much  greater."  This  matter  is  so  obvious  to  every  reader 
as  to  require  no  further  remark. 

You  go  on  to  say,  "  On  perusing  the  pamphlet,  I  do  not  find  a 
sentiment  which  I  can  suppose  an  anti-Episcopalian  writer  would 
produce  in  favour  of  a  parity  in  the  ministry."  What  then  ?  Is 
there  no  sentiment  v/hich  shows  that  Episcopal  ordination  has  been 
dispensed  with  by  the  Church  of  England,  and  ought  to  be  dispensed 
■with  in  some  cases  ?  Is  there  no  sentiment  which  will  forcibly  ap- 
ply against  those  who  contend  that  "  unintennipted  succession"  is 
absolutely  necessary— that  an  hiterruption  is  "  morally  impossible'' 


BY  THE  AUTHOR  OF  MISCELLANIES.    No.  III.    185 

•—that  ordinances  administered  by  any  but  those  ordained  after  the 
manner  of  the  Church  of  England,  are  "  nugatory  and  invahd" — 
and  "  that  we  can  no  more  lay  adde  Efiiscopacy,  and  yet  continue 
the  Christian  Friesf/iood,  iU^n  we  can  aUer  the  terms  of  salvation, 
and  yet  be  in  covenant  witli  God  ?"  Why  does  the  Bishop  reason 
from  the  doctrines,  the  practice,  and  the  principles  of  liis  owrt 
Church  in  favour  of  his  plan  ?  Why  does  he  call  Episcopacy  a 
♦'  ceremony" — a  "  din/iutedfioiiit" — a  "  matter  of  external  order  ?" 
&c.  Why  does  he,  in  expiess  words,  give  up  divine  right,  and 
declare  that  it  is  given  up  by  the  most  distinguished  Divines  in 
his  own  Church  ?  See  the  paragraph  as  quoted  in  "  Miscellanies," 
and  again,  in  my  reply  to  your  prolocutor,  "  Viiidex."  Do  you 
still  ask,  "  To  what  purpose  I"  Be  assured,  that  in  whatever  man- 
ner I  would  argue  "  in  favour  of  a  parity  in  the  ministry,"  no  ar- 
guments are  sounder  and  better  for  the  purpose  they  have  been  used, 
than  those  furnished  me  by  Bishop  White.*  He  is  an  Episcopalian 
with  whom  I  have  no  controversy.  He  has  completely  overthrown 
the  system  which  some  Episcopal  Priests  in  this  State  have  vainly 
and  arrogantly  set  up. 

In  my  twenty -first  number,  I  have,  inadvertently,  misunderstood 
the  Bishop,  and  applied  the  words  "  as  some  conceive,"  to  Episco- 
pa'ians  instead  of  applying  them  to  their  opponents.  I  am  the  less 
excusable  in  this,  as  in  a  pamphlet  which  offered  so  much  matter 
for  my  pui'pose,  there  was  no  necessity  to  quote  the  paragraph  at 
all.  I  am  glad  that  j-ou  have  subjoined  the  whole  of  it.  I  began 
to  quote  from  the  latter  part,  only  so  much  as  seemed  necessary  to 
mtroduce  the  reasoning  of  the  Bishop  which  immediately  follows, 
and  which  is  given  at  considerable  length  in  three  distinct  para- 
graphs. Except  that  I  have  not  quoted  the  part  of  the  paragraph 
in  which  "  the  grounds  on  which  the  authority  of  Episcopacy  is  as- 
serted," which  begins  with,  "  The  advocates  for  this  form  main- 
tain," 2cc.  and  which  you  say  "  ought  in  reason  to  be  understood  as 
conveying  the  author's  own"  opinion,  I  have  not  broken  the  sense 
or  connection;  but  every  reader  is  fully  enabled  to  judge  without 
any  comment  of  mine.  I  have  more  reason  to  complain  of  you  for 
subjoining  a  paragraph,  and  omitting  those  which  immediatelv  fol- 
low, and  which  are  absolutely  necessary  in  order  to  understand  the 
Bishop's  pamphlet.  The  mistake  in  misapplying  the  words  "  as 
some  conceive,"  and  whatever  has  particularly  arisen  from  it,  I 
readily  acknowledge,  and  hope  that  the  Bishop  will  excuse  me. 
The  reader  will  perceive  that,  had  I  been  inclined  to  misrepresent, 
there  was  no  temptation  in  this  instance ;  as  "iLere  were  so  many 
passages  in  the  pamphlet  express  to  my  purpose,  and  a  misrepre- 
sentation would  be  worse  than  useless. 

With  respect  to  the  fault  which  you  find  in  my  use  of  the  quota- 
tion from  Bishop  Hoadly,  I  submit  to  the  judgment  of  every  candid 

•  And  yet  Bishop  White,  in  this  pamphlet,  which  is  attributed  to  him, 
maintains,  that  yestts  Christ  lodged  an  Epincopal  power  in  tl-.e  Apostles,  by 
whom  it  was  conveyed  to  the  bijljest  order  of  the  minstry,  called  Bishops. 
In  his  sermon  before  the  General  Convention,  he  maintains,  that  tlie  Apos- 
tles constituted  an  order  of  Minhters  with  a  supereminent  cotntnhsion,  which 
1x21  been  banded  duv.Ji  thiough  succepding  ages  !  iiV. 

2  B 


IBS    BY  THE  AUTHOR  OF  MISCELLANIES.    No.  IV. 

person.  If  he  and  Bishop  White  do  not  assert,  that  there  are  not 
"  three  distinct  orders  in  the  Church  by  divine  appointment  "  the 
inference  is  at  least  natural,  that  such  was  their  opinion' ;  especi- 
ally when  the  connection  is  considered  together  with  other  parts 
of  the  pamphlet.  In  a  preceding  page  Bishop  White  shows  this 
very  thing ;  that  the  doctrines  of  his  Church  do  not  teach  that  Epis- 
copal ordination  is  "  as  much  binding  as  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper  ;"  and  he  surrenders,  in  a  subsequent  page,  in  as  plain  and 
strong  words  as  possible,  the  idea  of  divine  right.  I  confidently 
refer  the  reader  to  the  passages  which  have  been  quoted  in  "  Mis- 
cellanies," and  to  the  scope  of  the  whole  pamphlet. 

Lest  I  should  be  tedious,  I  shall  defer  farther  remarks  until  ano- 
ther opportunity.  Had  it  not  been  for  the  intrusion  of  "  Vindex,"  I 
could  have  furnished  by  this  time,  all  I  have  to  say.  Your  senti- 
ments are  conveyed  with  sufficient  perspicuity  and  precision,  with- 
out any  elucidation  and  enforcement  of  his.  A  brace  on  the  table 
is  pleasant  enough ;  but  a  brace  of  antagonists  is  not  very  eligible. 

I  really  cannot  see  any  strength  which  Episcopacy,  as  held  by 
the  high-flyers  in  this  State,  is  to  gain  by  your  letter.  If  your  in- 
tention was  merely  to  point  out  some  mistakes  which  you  dihcerned 
in  my  publications,  I  am  sincerely  obliged  to  you.  Admitting  these 
mistakes  to  be  far  more  numerous  than  you  pretend,  do  they  alter 
the  nature  of  the  pamphlet  ?  Do  they  aifect,  in  tlie  smallest  degree, 
the  cause  for  which  I  contend  against  my  opponents  here  I  Must 
you  not  be  sensible  that  the  sentiments  of  Bishop  White  have  been 
produced  with  great  propriety  and  force  ?  I  never  meant  to  say 
that  he  is  not  an  Episcopalian — that  he  pleads  for  "  parity" — and 
that  he  is  not  conscientiously  attached  to  the  form  of  government  in 
his  own  Church.  I  believe  otherwise  j  and  I  pray  that  Episcopa- 
lians may  ever  have  such  Bishops. 


For  the  Albany  Centincl. 

By  the  Author  of  "  Miscellanies.'"    No.  IV. 

TO  "  AN  EPISCOPALIAN." 

Sir, 

X  HASTEN  to  answer  the  remainder  of  your  letter. 

You  are  not  satisfied  with  my  quoting  a  note  from  the  pamphlet, 
as  expressive  of  the  Bishop's  own  opinion.  Having  mistaken  the 
meaning  of  the  words,  "  as  some  conceive,"  the  other  mistake 
naturally  followed  ;  especially  as  the  note  is  not  marked  as  a  quo- 
tation from  Neal's  history,  and  the  same  opinion  is  delivered  in  a 
I^receding  part  of  the  pamphlet,  which  is  quoted  by  me,  in  connec- 
tion with  the  other.  The  express  words  of  the  Bishop  are,  p.  18, 
*'  In  the  early  ages  of  the  Church  it  was  customary  to  debate  and 
determine  in  a  general  concourse  of  all  Christians  in  the  same  city  ; 
among  whom  the  Bishop  was  no  more  than  President."    Where  is 


BY  THE  AUTHOR  OF  MISCELLANIES.    No.  IV.    ISf 

the  difference  between  this  and  the  note  complained  of?  "  The  ori- 
ginal order  of  Bishops  was  from  the  Presbyters  choosing  one  from 
among  themselves  to  be  a  stated  president  in  their  assemblies,  in 
the  second  or  tliird  century."  Would  not  any  man,  after  reading 
the  Bishop's  own  words,  conclude  that  he  approved  of  the  opinion 
he  has  quoted  from  the  Sinectynviuan  Divines  ?  I  mention  this  not 
to  justify,  but  to  excuse  myself.  The  first  quotation  is  sufficient  for 
my  purpose  ;*  and  I  am  content  to  surrender  the  note,  as  expres- 
sing the  opinion  of  anti-Episcopalians,  believing  that  the  worthy 
Bishop  thus  intended  it. 

The  assertion  in  my  twenty-third  number,  that  the  Bishop's 
"  reasoning  is  as  strong  for  a  total  as  for  a  temporary  departure," 
you  allege  is  groundless.  You  will  observe,  that  I  do  not  say  that 
he  thought  so,  or  that  he  meant  it  to  be  so  applied,  but  give  it 
merely  as  my  own  opinion,  and  add  some  reasons,  in  "  Miscel- 
lanies," on  which  my  opinion  is  founded.  I  shall  neither  repeat 
these,  nor  produce  any  new  ones.  Whether  my  opinion  is  just  or 
not,  is  of  no  consequence,  as  to  the  argument  against  my  opponents. 
They  admit  of  no  departure  from  Episcopacy — of  no  necessity  but 
that  of  uninterrufued  succession.  They  insist,  that  "  the  divine 
Head  of  the  Church  has  pledged  himself  to  preserve  the  succession 
of  his  ministry  (as  held  by  Episcopalians)  to  the  end  of  the  world" — 
that  an  "  interruption  seems  indeed  morally  impossible" — that  the 
moment  this  change  or  interruption  is  made,  human  authority 
usurps  the  place,  in  the  Church,  of  divine" — that  "  it  must  be 
essential  to  ilie  efficacy  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  a  means  and 
pledge  of  divine  grace,  that  it  be  administered  by  those  who  have 
received  lawful  authority  (from  the  Bishops  of  the  Episcopal 
Church)  to  administer  it,"  &c.  Sccf  Now,  the  Bishop  strenuously 
pleads  for  a  temporary  departure — -is  for  constituting  a  Church, 
"  without  v/aiting  for  the  succession" — thinks  that  the  word  preach- 
ed, and  ordinances  thus  administered,  would  be  effectual  to  salva- 
tion, "  perhaps  as  long  as  the  present  generation  shall  continue" — . 
calls  Epi'^copal  succession  "  a  disputed  point,  relating  to  externals," 
&c. — gives  up  explicitly  and  fully  the  idea  of  divine  right — states 
and  urges,  from  the  doctrines,  the  practice  and  the  principles  of 
his  Church,  that  a  departure  from  Episcopacy,  in  certain  cases,  is 
•warrantable  and  necessary.  Where  then  is  the  "  moral  impossi- 
bility of  an  interruption  in  the  succession  ?"  Where  the  "  pledge 
of  Christ  to  preserve  the  succession? '|  Where  that  unscriptura!, 
unreasonable,  and  uncharitable  r,ystem  which  Episcopal  Divines  in 
this  State  are  attempting  tc  set  up  ?     If  the  Bishop  be  right,  as  he 

*  What !  Does  the  first  quotation  prove  that  the  Bishops  originated  in 
the  second  or  third  century  ?  Does  the  first  quotation  prove  that  the  Bishop 
had  not  the  exclusive  pc)vvcr  of  ordination  ?  Ed. 

\  And  have  not  some  of  the  warmest  advocater,  of  Episcopacy  main- 
tained the  same  sentiments,  and  yet  made  an  exception  for  what  they  con- 
ceive a  case  nf  intxitabte  necessity  ?  Ed. 

\  And  must  tlie  au'-hor  of  Miscellanies  again  be  told,  that  the  succession 
is  not  interrupted  when  any  particular  Church  throws  off  the  succession  \ 
iVhcrever  the  order  of  regulur  Bishops  exists,  there  is  the  succession  un- 
interrupted. Ed, 


188    BY  THE  AUTHOR  OF  MISCELLANIES.    No.  IV* 

indubitably  is,  in  my  mind,  their  saucy  tenets  are  scattered  liktt 
chaff  before  the  wind.* 

I  continue.  Sir,  to  lament,  "  that  the  government  of  the  Episco- 
pal Church  was  not  founded  on  the  plan  represented  in  the  pamph- 
let." There  might  have  been  then  some  prospect  of  an  union  of 
the  Churches  in  this  country  ;  a  matter  which  has,  formerly,  been 
near  my  heart.f  I  believe  nov/,  that  it  is  not  the  will  of  Providence, 
and  I  am  resigned.  I  trust  that  I  am  no  bigot.  I  am  not  quarrel- 
ling with  Episcopal  government,  when  put  on  the  ground  of  expe- 
diency or  of  preference.  I  have  been  inclined  to  lean  a  little  to  the 
opinion,  that  there  was  no  precise  form  of  government  prescribed 
in  the  scriptures ;  but  that  it  was  to  be  accommodated  to  circum- 
stances. I  would  be  cautious  in  asserting  the  divi?ie  right,  either 
of  Episcopacy,  or  of  Presbyterianism ;  though,  I  think,  that  the 
latter  has  the  superior  claim.  Is  there  not  cause  of  complaint  when 
a  Church  sets  up  exclusive  pretensions,  and  will  not  extend  to 
others  the  same  privilege  which  is  extended  to  her  ?  Is  not  this  the 
very  principle  which  has  obliged  us  to  protest  against  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  ?  Is  there  any  difference  whether  we  are  called 
to  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  transubstandation,  or  in  the  divine 
right  of  Episcopacy,  under  pain  of  being  shut  out  from  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  1\ 

"  The  ground,"  you  say,  "  on  which  the  plea  for  a  temporary 
departure  rested,  was  soon  done  away."  It  was  so  ;  but  surely, 
the  sentiments  of  the  Bishop  remain.  It  is  evident,  that  lie  did  not 
expect  the  necessity  to  be  removed  so  soon  ;  because  he  speaks  in 
one  place  of  its  continuing  "  perhaps  as  long  as  the  present  genera- 
tion shall  continue."  No  matter  whether  the  necessity  was  for  one 
year,  or  a  generation,  or  all  generations,  his  plan  was  to  co-extend 
with  the  necessiiy.  His  Church  might  have  been  still  Episcopal^ 
and  might  have  had  three  distinct  orders ;  for  I  could  suppose  a 
case  in  which  "  uninterrupted  succession"  is  impossible ;  and  in 
which  it  would  be  the  duty  of  a  people  to  form  such  government  as 
they  preferred  ;  and  the  ordinances  of  the  Gospel  administered  by 
those  whom  they  appointed,  would  be  as  acceptable  to  the  Head  of 
the  Church,  and  as  effectual  means  of  salvation,  as  when  adminis- 
tered by  those  immediately  appointed  by  the  Apostles  themselves. (| 
Let  not  this  be  construed  as  maintaining  that  the  observance  of 

•  "  Sauey  tenets."  Let  the  autlior  of  Miscellanies  learn  not  to  "  speak 
evil"  of  those  venerable  Fathers  of  the  Church,  who  maintained  the  tenets 
which  he  tlius  elegantly  characterizes.  £</. 

f  Alas  !  that  tiie  author  of  "  Miscellanic*"  did  not  go  fov  instruction  to 
the  old  school  of  the  primitive  Church.  He  would  then  have  found  that 
^Iptscopacy  was  the  principle  of  that  Church  unity  which  "  has  been  near 
his  heart."  Ed. 

^  And  is  there  any  dilTerence,  may  the  Socinian  say,  ivhether  vse  are 
called  to  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  trnnstibstaittiation  or  the  doctrine  cf  the 
Trinity,  tinder  pain  of  being  shut  out  from  the  kingdom  of  Heaven?  Episco- 
palians judge  none.  To  his  own  master  every  man  will  stand  or  falL 
And  yet  truth  must  be  maintained,  and  the  danger  of  rejecting  it,  dis- 
played. Ed. 

IJ  It  would  have  been  well,  if  the  author  of  Miscellanies  had  speciiied 
this  case.  £d. 


BY  THE  AUTHOR  OF  MISCELLANIES.    No.  V.     i» 

rules  in  a  Church  already  formed  is  unnecessary,  or  may  be  dis- 
pensed with. 

I  have  written,  I  hope,  what  you  will  deem  sufficient  and  satis- 
factory. I  feel  myself  indebted  for  your  letter ;  and  if  ever  I  should 
collect  my  numbers  into  a  pamphlet,  I  shall  profit  by  your  remarks. 
For  the  Bishop  I  have  a  sincere  and  high  respect,  chiefly  from  the 
character  which  lie  universally  sustains.  Did  I  think  it  necessary, 
or  that  it  would  be  agreeable  to  him,  I  would  send  him  my  name. 
If  ever  the  author  of  "  Miscellanies"  has  an  opportunity,  he  will 
testify,  in  person,  the  estimation  in  which  he  holds  him. 


For  the  Albany  Centind. 

By  the  Author  of  "  Miscellanies."    No.  V. 

J.  SHALL  now  finish  my  remarks  on  the  last  piece  of  "  Cyprian," 
and  I  hope  that  the  conduct  of  my  numerous  opponents  will  not 
extort  any  thing  farther  from  me.  My  expectation  was  vain,  that 
when  their  ecclesiastical  drum  beat  to  arms,  they  would  easily  yield 
the  victory  to  a  single  person  ;  or  that  even  a  retreating  and  irregu- 
lar fire  on  their  part,  would  soon  cease. 

By  the  large  extracts  which  I  have  published  from  Bishop  White's 
pamphlet,  and  the  explanation  of  them  lately  given,  both  by  "  Aa 
Episcopalian,"  and  myself,  it  must  be  evident,  beyond  contradiction, 
that  the  Bishop  holds  sentiments  widely  different  from  those  warmly 
contended  for  by  the  author  of  "  A  Comp;u:iion  for  the  Festivals 
and  Fasts,"  £cc.  and  his  coadjutors  in  this  State.*  What  "  Cy- 
prian" says  on  this  subject  is  strange.  '*  The  judicious  and  amia- 
ble Prelate  of  Pennsylvania,"  says  he,  "  although  at  a  very  critical 
and  hazardous  season,  he  was  willing  to  relax  somewhat  from  the 
rigour  of  his  principles,  and  by  a  temporary  departure  from  them, 
make  an  effort  to  save  his  Church  from  the  ruin  that  seemed  to 
threaten  her  ;  yet  let  it  be  remembered,  that  he  has  never  aban- 
doned these  principles."  I  ask  now,  if  no  ordination  is  valid  except 
that  performed  by  Bishops  of  the  Episcopal  Church ;  if  oi-dinances 
administered  by  any  other  are  inefficacious ;  and  if  there  can  be  no 
true  Church  without  a  government  by  three  orders,  how  a  depar- 
ture from  these  principles  was  to  save  his  Church  froJii  ruin  ?  Was 
not  this  to  plunge  her  into  deeper  ruin  ?    According  to  "  Cyprian," 

•  And  let  it  be  observed,  once  for  all,  that  the  question  of  Episcopacy 
is  surely  not  to  rest  on  the  decision  of  any  individual,  however  great  his 
reputation  and  amiable  his  character.  It  should  be  tested  "  by  the  law  and 
the  testimony,"  as  explained  by  the  best  commentary,  the  universal  faith 
and  usage  of  t\\e  C\\\irc\\.  Bishop  While  would  certainly  give  a  decision 
on  the  subject,  not  very  agreeable  to  tlie  author  of  Miscellanies.  For  he 
would  trace  the  Jipiscobul  j)0\vcr  to  the  Af>ostles,  in  whom  it  was  lodged  by 
yesus  Christ.  The  scntinients  maintained  by  the  author  of  the  "  Compa- 
nion for  the  Festivals,"  &c.  and  "  his  coadjutors,"  are  suj)ported  by  the 
authority  of  uamce,  thiit  will  yield  to  none  ia  talents,  learning,  and 
piety.  Ed. 


190     BY  THE  AUTHOR  OF  MISCELLANIES.    No.  V. 

Ministers  and  ordinances  on  the  plan  of  Bishop  White,  would  b« 
mockery,  sacrilege,  usurpation,  schism,  rebellion  against  Christ, 
and  what  was  worse  than  to  be  in  a  state  ol  heathenism.*  It  will 
readily  be  believed  that  Bishop  White  has  "  never  abandoned  his 
principles."  He  is  an  Episcopalian,  and  is  an  ornament  to  the 
Church  over  which  he  presides.  He  holds  such  Episcopacy  as  is 
consistent  with  reason,  scripture,  and  that  "  charity  which  is  the 
bond  of  perfcctness."t 

*'  Cyprian"  speaks  of  my  "  resentment  against  the  Companion 
for  the  Altar,"  of  the  "  flame  of  my  indignation,"  and  directs  me. 
to  the  Epii^tles  of  Ignatius  for  "  more  abundant  fuel."  Against  the 
author  referred  to  and  himself  I  certainly  feel  no' resentment.  It 
is  not  said,  though  the  reader  may  suppose  it,  as  I  did  myself  on 
first  reading  the  sentence.  As  to  the  copious  quotations  which 
*'  Cyprian"  has  made  from  Ignatius,  and  on  which  he  lays  his  chief 
stress,  they  admit  of  a  very  short  answer.     They  are  not  genuine. :f 

Hear  the  words  of  Mosheim,  that  learned  and  impartial  ecclebi- 
astical  historian.  "  There  arc  yet  extant  several  Epistles,  attri- 
buted to  him,  concerning  the  authenticity  of  which  there  have  been, 
howevei',  tedious  and  warm  disputes  among  the  learned,  which 
still  subsist."  Farther:  "  The  whole  question  relating  to  the  Epis- 
tles of  St.  Ignatius  in  general,  seems  to  me  to  labour  under  much 
obscurity,  and  to  be  embarrassed  with  many  difficulties."  There 
are  seven  Epistles,  which  Ma.heim  says,  "  the  most  of  learned 
jnen  acknowledge  to  be  genuine  ;"  but  "  Cyprian"  has  not  told  me 
which  I  am  to  read.|)  Indeed,  I  am  unwilling  to  admit  any  of  them 
as  proof,  until  their  authenticity  is  ascertained  ;  and  not  even  then, 
unless  they  are  agreeable  to  sacred  writ.  "  To  the  law  and  to  the 
testimony :  if  they  speak  not  according  to  this  word,  it  is  because 
there  is  no  light  in  them." 

It  is  impossible  to  reconcile  the  professions  of  charity  which, 

*  The  author  of  Miscellanies  persists  in  confounding;  i)\t  general  state  of 
the  Church,  in  which  Episcopal  ordination  is  necessary  to  the  exercise  of 
3.  valid  ministry,  with  those  cases  of  "  ine'vitable  r,t;cessiiy  "  in  which,  ac- 
cording to  some,  ordination  by  Presbyters  is  valid.  A  person  who  main- 
tains that  ordination  by  Presbyters  is  valid  in  a  case  nf  necessity,  where  or- 
dinaticm  by  Bishops  cannot  he  had  (which  Bishop  White  supposed  was  the 
situation  of  the  Episcopal  churches  at  the  time  when  the  pamphlet  was 
written),  may  surely  consistently  maintain,  that  in  all  other  cases.  Episcopacy 
is  essential  to  the  Church,  and  Episcopal  ordination  essential  to  the  exercise 
of  a  valid  ministry.  Ed. 

t  Now  Bishop  White  holds,  that  ^esus  Christ  lodged  an  Episcopal po^xer 
txith  the  Apostles,  vihich  tvas  by  them  communicated  to  the  order  of  Bishops  : 
that  the  Apostles  vested  an  order  of'  Ministers,  among  luhovi  were  Timothy 
and  Titus,  ivith  a  supereminent  commission;  that  tliis  commission  has  been 
band«d  down  through  succeeding  ages;  that  this  is  the  Originally  con- 
stituted oRor.R.  Le.  it  be  rcmemlxred  then,  that,  according  to  the 
author  of  Miscellanies,  this  is  an  Episcopacy  "  consistent  with  reason, 
scripture,  and  that  charity  v/hich  is  the  bond  of  perfectness."  Ed. 

\  This  is  an  easy  way  of  destroying  the  authority  of  Ignatius.  See  the 
remarl;s  at  the  end  of  this  nun^ber.  Ed. 

\\  From  the  Epistles  aci-cnowledged,  according  to  Mosheim,  "  by  the  most, 
of  learned  men,"  tobs  genuine,  v/eve  the  quotations  of  Cyprian  taken.  Ed, 


BY  THE  AUTHOR  OF  MISCELLANIES.    No.  V.     191 

"  Cyprian"  makes  with  many  of  his  assertions.  "  If  our  doctrine,'* 
Says  he,  "  goes  tp  unchurch  other  denominations,  it  is  much  to  be 
regretted."  Again  :  "  Episcopalians  believe  their  own  Church  the 
only  true  one."  Again  :  "  It  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  us  all, 
that  we  should  be  in  the  true  Church,  in  the  Church  (the  Episcopal 
Church)  which  was  founded  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  In  no 
other  place  can  we  obtain  a  title  to  the  covenanted  mercy  of  God. 
In  the  Episcopal  Church  we  are  assured  that  we  are  in  perfect 
security.  Those  who  are  in  involuntary  or  unavoidable  ignorance 
on  this  topic  (such  as  idiots,  or  sivch  as  live  in  heathenish  darkness, 
or  such  as  have  never  read  as  much  as  the  Episcopal  Priests,  and 
have  not  the  same  enlarged  understandings)  no  doubt,  will  be  ex- 
cused by  God.  But  let  it  be  remembered,  that  the  same  indul- 
gence cannot  be  supposed  to  be  extended  to  those  who,  when  they 
have  been  admitted  to  the  light  (they  who  have  read  '*  A  Compa- 
nion for  ihe  Festivals  and  Fasts,"  &c.  and  the  productions  of  "  A 
Lavman,"  and  "  Cyprian"),  have  wilfully  and  obstinately  closed 
their  eyes  against  it."  This  is  his  charity  1  Who  could  expect,  not- 
withstanding all  this,  to  hear  him  talking  of  "  a  most  since7-e  and 
ardent  attachment  to  brethren  of  other  denominations" — of  "  fel- 
low Christians" — of  "  not  pretending  to  hurl  anathemas"' — of  *'  ut- 
terly disclaiming  all  unchristian  sentiments' — of  "  trusting  that  we 
(Episcopalians)  shall  at  last  meet  many  of  them  (anti-Episcopa- 
lians) in  that  haven  where  we  would  be."  The  reader  shall  make 
his  own  reflections,  if  he  indulge  me  in  a  single  one.  If  this  be  the 
charity  of  Episcopalians,  I  sincerely  and  publicly  declare  it  is  not 
that  which  I  exercise  towards  them.  "  Cyprian"  says,  in  the  name 
of  his  Church,  "  We  exact  from  others  only  the  same  privilege 
•which,  in  our  turn,  we  are  willing  to  yield  them."  They  shall  have 
abundantly  more  than  they  have  yielded  to  me.  I  do  not  unchurck 
them.  I  do  not  assert  that  their  ordination,  and  their  administra- 
tion of  ordinances  are  invalid.*  I  will  not  express  myself  so  coldly 
as  to  say,  "  We  trust  we  shall  meet  many  of  them  in  heaven;"  for 
I  firmly  believe  it.  God  forbid  that  my  charity  should  be  able  to 
find  no  other  excuse  for  brethren  who  differ  from  me,  than  that 
*'  thev  have  wilfully  and  obstinately  closed  their  eyes  against  the 
light  !"t 

•  Here  is  the  great  atlvantage  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  Even  its  op- 
ponents cannot  asF:ert  tliut  its  "  administration  of  ordinances  is  invalid.'* 
In  maintaining  that  Episcopal  ordination  is  necessary  to  the  exercise  of  a 
valid  ministry,  Episcopalians  contend  for  the  faivh  of  the  universal  Cliurch 
for  fifteen  centuries.  With  the  unpleasant  consequences  that  may  result 
from  this  opinion,  they  are  not  cliargeablc.  They  wish  to  "judge  no 
man."  "  To  his  own  master  he  staiv.letii  or  falleth."  Ed. 

f  The  Qiiaker  can  go  still  farther  In  charity  than  the  author  of  Miscel- 
lanies, for  he  can  extend  his  charity  to  those  who  wilfully  reject  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  Socinian  will  contend  for  the  praise  of  supe« 
rior  charity  with  the  author  of  Miscellanies,  for  he  also  can  say,  "  God 
forbid  that  my  charity  should  be  able  to  find  no  other  excuse  for"  those 
who  deny  the  divinity  of  Christ,  "  than  tliat  they  have  wilfully  and  obsti- 
nately closed  their  eyes  against  the  liglit !" 

Cyprisin  did  not  aj/pl/  pcrttr.alty  to  any  individual  who  opposed  Episco- 


192     BY  THE  AUTHOR  OF  MISCELLANIES.    No.  V. 

I  see  no  good  reason  why  *<  Cyprian"  has  digressed  from  the 
subject  to  attack  the  seventeenth  article  of  his  own  Church.  *'  If 
there  are,"  says  he,  "  any  doctrines  uncharitable  in  themselves — if 
there  are  any  doctrines  that  would  excite  my  zeal  to  extirpate  them 
from  the  Chuixh  of  Christ — they  are  the  doctrines  of  election  and 
reprobation  as  taught  in  the  institutes  of  Ca'vin."  The  institutes 
of  Calvin  were  written  by  an  individual,  and  arc  entitled  to  no  other 
authority  than  what  the  character  of  a  great  reformer,  reason,  and 
scripture  give  them  ;  but  the  articles  of  the  Episcopal  Church  have 
long  received  the  sanction  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  have 
been  adopted  in  this  country.  It  looks,  therefore,  like  a  wantonness, 
especially  in  a  member  of  that  Church,  to  go  out  of  his  way  to  rail 
against  them.  I  know  that  the  article  which  respects  election  and 
reprobation  is  not  entirely  to  the  mind  of  some  Episcopal  Priests  ; 
and  that  in  a  Convention  held  1799,  a  substitute  was  proposed ;  but 
that  the  Convention,  after  mature  deliberation,  determined  (in  my 
opinion  wisely),  that  they  either  would  not,  or  could  not,  at  present, 
alter  the  Divine  decrees.*  As  this,  however,  is  a  matter  which 
has  no  connection  with  the  controversy  on  hand,  and  I  wonder  how 
*'  Cyprian"  contrived  to  introduce  it,  I  shall  leave  him,  if  he  should 
be  thought  censurable,  to  the  admonition  of  his  Bishop. 

If  the  assertion  of  "  Cyprian"  be  true,  that  the  Episcopal  Church 
^  has  always  been  the  mildest,  the  most  tolerant  and  charitable  in 
her  spirit,  of  any  Church  in  Christendom,"  I  shall  only  say,  that 
I  am  sorry  she  has  forfeited  her  character  in  this  country.  Never 
were  more  intolerant  i?rinciples  held  by  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  ; 
and  nothing  appears  to  me  wanting  but  power  to  act  again  the  same 
bloody  scenes.f  She  sets  up  for  the  mother  Church,  the  only  Church  ; 
and  declares  that  there  is  no  salvation  in  any  other.^  I  cannot  be-, 
lieve  that  these  are  the  sentiments  of  the  great  body  of  the  deno- 
mination ;  and  I  trust  that  the  advocates  of  them  will,  upon  longer 
and  more  mature  reflection,  become  less  rash  and  censorious. 

"  A  little  learning  is  a  dangerous  thing; 

"  Drink  deep,  or  taste  not  the  Pierian  spring." 

pacy,  the  charge  that  his  opposition  was  "  obstinate  and  wilful."  Such 
^lay  surely  characterize  opposition  to  Episcopacy;  it  is  therefore  the  duty 
of  its  advocates  to  caution  its  opponents  against  this  inexcusable  opposition. 
Who  justl  V  merits  tlie  charge,  they  presume  not  to  say ;  it  is  known  only  to 
Cod.  '  Ed. 

*  See  the  remarks  at  the  end  of  this  number.  Ed. 

t  Here,  doubtless,  the  author  of  Miscellanies  exercises  that  '*  charity 
which  is  the  bond  of  perfectness."  Here,  doubtless,  he  displays  that  "  spi-- 
Tit  of  the  gospel,"  the  want  of  which,  in  one  of  the  following  sentences, 
he  charitably  imputes  to  his  opponents.  Here,  he  evidences  the  sincerity 
of  his  professions  of  respect  for  the  Episcopal  Church.  What  would  be 
thought,  what  would  be  said  of  the  Episcopalian  who  should  impute  such 
a  disposition  to  those  who  conscientiously  differed  from  him  in  opinion  \ 
Surely  when  the  author  of  Miscellanies  wrote  this  sentence,  he  "  knew 
not  what  spirit  he  was  of."  Ed. 

\  Not  so.  Episcopalians  do  not  thus  presumptuously  limit  the  mercies 
of  the  Almighty.  In  all  denominations  ;  the  humble,  the  penitent,  and 
the  obedient,  wiiose  errors  are  not  voluntary  and  v/ilful,  will  be  accepted 


N. 


BY  THE  AUTHOR  OP  MISCELLANIES.     No.  V.     193 

When  their  locks  are  silvered  by  age,  when  their  experience  is 
more  ripe,  and  when  they  have  imbibed  more  of  the  spirit  of  the 
Gospel,  they  will  abate  in  self-sufficiency  and  exclusive  pretensions.* 
The  reader  will  make  such  application  as  he  may  think  proper,  of 
the  following  passage  in  the  New  Testament :  "  And  when  his  dis-' 
ciples  James  and  John  saw  this,  they  said,  Lord,  wilt  thou  that  we 
command  fire  to  come  down  from  heaven  and  consume  them,  even 
as  Elias  did  ?  But  he  turned  and  rebuked  them,  and  said.  Ye  know 
not  what  manner  of  spirit  ye  are  made  of." 

I  shall  conclude  with  expressing  a  few  sentiments,  and  challeng- 
ing my  opponents  to  meet  me  on  the  same  liberal  ground.  I  believe 
that  the  Episcopal  Church  is  a  part  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and 
that  the  ordinances  administered  by  her  are,  with  the  blessing  of 
God,  effectual  means  of  salvation.  Did  I  reside  in  a  place  where 
I  could  attend  only  that  Church,  I  would  worship  with  her,  and  re- 
ceive the  sacraments  from  her  hand  ;  yea,  had  I  been  educated  in 
that  Churcii,  I  think  it  highly  probable,  that  I  would  remain  in  her 
communion.  I  can  easily  conceive  that  persons  may  prefer  Epis- 
copal government  without  being  "  in  involuntary  or  unavoidable  ig- 
norance," or  without  "  wilfully  or  obstinately  closing  their  eyes 
against  the  light."  I  think  it  perfectly  right,  that  every  Church 
should  adopt  and  conform  to  such  regulations  as  they  may  judge  to 
be  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God.  In  short,  I  contend  for  no  other 
privilege  to  be  extended  to  me,  than  what  Cj'prian  has  promised, 
or  than  what  I  cheerfully  extend  to  others.  He  most  heartily 
■wishes  that  I  was  a  "  good  Kfiiscofialian."  I  sirycerely  thank  him. 
1  think  myself  safer  where  I  am;  because  I  act  according  to  my 
conscience,  as  he  does  according  to  his.  Let  him  continue  an  £/its-^ 
cofialian,  and  me  a  Presbyterian  ;  and  if  we  both  improve  the  pre- 
cious advantages  which  we  enjoy,  we  shall  meet  in  heaven,  and 
spend  an  eternity  together  in  praising  "  Him  who  hath  loved  us  and 
washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blGod."t 


by  the  gracious  Parent  of  the  universe,  through  the  merits  of  that  b'ood 
which  was  shed  for  all.  These  are  the  Eentiments  expressly  avowed  in 
various  parts  of  his  books  by  the  author  of  the  "  Companion  for  the  Fes- 
tivals and  Fasts,"  and  "  for  the  Ahar."  £d. 

*  Young  as  may  be  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  to  whom  the  author  of 
Miscellanies  here  alludes,  they  surely  deserve  commendation  for  not  indulg-. 
r.ag  a  propensity,  common  to  youth,  and  which  those  whose  "  locks  are 
silvered  by  age"  have  not  always  restrained,  to  :.tnke  cut  into  nevi  paths. 
Their  object  has  been  to  find  the  "  old  paths,  and  to  walk  therein."  They 
sought  to  drink  at  the  deep  and  pure  fountain  oi  prhnitiiexru\.h,  not  in 
the  shallow  and  degenerate  streams  of  later  ages.  The  charges  of  self' 
wfficient  and  exciushe  pretensions  will  apply  to  all  the  primitive  Fathers, 
and  to  some  of  the  most  eminent  Divines  that  ever  adorned  the  Church. 
With  such  company  they  are  proud  to  be  ranked;  and  thus  supported 
they  fear  not  any  charge  that  can  be  brought  against  them.  Ed. 

t  In  this  sentiment  every  Episcopalian  can  join,  for  though  "  in  these 
coHtroversies,  tnttb  can  be  only  on  one  side,  sincerity  may  be  on  both." 
And  where  there  has  not  been  z-ailfu!  rcglect  of  tlie  means  of  information, 
nor  a  tuilful  opposition  to  the  truth,  sincerity,  ex-en  ir.  error,  will  be  accepted 
by  the  mercilul  Judge  of  the  world.  -i^*- 

2C 


(  194  y 

lEet7tark$f  by  the  Editor,  on  the  fire  ceding  JVumber.'] 

In  the  preceding  number  the  author  of  Miscellanies  makes  two 
assertions  which  require  particular  notice :  That  the  Epistles  of 
Ignatius  are  not  genuine  ;  and  that  the  Articles  of  the  Church  o£ 
England  are  Calvinistic. 

Jn  regard  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius  : 

That  this  venerable  Father  wrote  certain  Epistles  cannot  admit 
of  a  doubt.  Many  of  the  primitive  writers  quote  from  Epistles 
which  they  attribute  to  him.  Eusebius  in  particular,  makes  mention 
of  seven  Epistles,  which  he  considers  as  the  genuine  productions  of 
this  apostolic  Father.  These  seven  Epistiesare  now  alone  defended, 
and  some  others  whiclv  have  been  attributed  to  him  are  given  up  as 
spurious* 

These  seven  Epistles  first  appeared  in  a  larger  form  than  at  pre- 
sent ;  in  which  state  though  they  were  defended  by  many  learned 
men,  as  in  substance  the  production  of  Ignatius,  yet  ail  acknow- 
ledged that  they  were  corrupted  and  interpolated.  There  was  no 
reason  to  believe,  however,  that  the  testimony  in  regard  to  Episco- 
pacy, which  was  interwoven  with  almost  every  sentence  of  these 
Epistles,  was  spurious,  or  not  entitled  to  credit.  Archbishop  Usher 
at  length  published  a  Latin  version  of  these  Epistles,  from  two  manu- 
scripts ;  one  of  which  he  found  in  the  University  of  Cambridge, 
and  another  in  a  private  library.  This  version  exactly  agreed 
with  all  the  pasr-ages  recited  lay  the  Fathers ;  and  is  not  lia- 
ble to  the  objections  urged  against  the  larger  copies  of  these  Epis- 
tles. A  short  time  after,  the  learned  Isaac  Vossius  (who,  it 
should  be  recollected,  was  not  an  Episcopalian)  found  in  the  library 
at  Florence,  a  Greek  manuscript  of  these  Epistles,  in  which  the 
text  exactly  agreed  with  the  Latin  version  published  by  Usher. 

These  Epistles,  as  published  by  Usher  and  Fossius,  and  which 
are  known  by  the  name  of  the  smaller  Epistles,  are  those  which, 
according  to  Mosheim,  "  the  most  learned  men  acknowledge  to  be 
genuine,"  This  opinion  he  himself  adopts  as  "  preferable  to  any 
other."  These  are  the  Epistles  which  even  Blomdel,  Salma- 
sus,  Daille,  learned  opponents  of  Episcopacy,  acknov/^Iege  are 
the  Epistles  which  Eusebius,  the  ecclesrastical  historian  of  the 
third  century,  possessed ;  and  which  answer  exactly  to  quotations 
from  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  in  the  writings  of  several  of  the  Fa- 
thers. These  are  the  Epistles  which  have  been  received  as  genuine, 
not  oiily  by  all  the  learned  advocates  of  Episcopacy,  but  by  other 
learned  men  who  were  not  Episcopalians;  by  Grotius,  by  Le 
Glerc,  8cc.  and  even  by  Dr.  Lardner,  (than  whom  there  could 
not  be  a  more  accurate  judge  of  the  genuineness  of  ancient  writings) 
•who  says,, "  I  do  not  affirm  that  there  are  in  them  any  considerable 
corruptions  or  altarations,"* 

What  greater  proof  can  we  have  of  the  genuineness  of  any  writ- 
ings than  that  tliey  were  quoted  by  contemporary  and  succeeding 
writers.  The  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  as  published  by  Usher  and 
Vossius,   are  quoted  by  Polycarp,  who  knew  Ignatius,  and  by- 

•  Sec  Bishop  KorGley's  Letter  in  Reply  to  Dr.  Priestley.    Letter  5. 


REMARKS  ON  MISCELLANIES.  199 

Ireneus,  Origen,  and  Eusebius,  of  succeeding  ages,  blithe 
passages  recited  by  them  may  be  found,  luordjbr  word,  in  the  edi« 
tions  by  Usher  and  Vossius.  According  to  the  learned  Dupin, 
"  This  is  true  not  only  in  the  resemblance  of  one  or  two  passages, 
but  in  a  very  great  number  that  are  cited  by  different  auth-jrs; 
which  makes  it  so  much  the  more  certain."  "Besides,"  continues 
this  leH.nied  iiistorian,  "  there  is  nothing  in  these  Epistles  which 
drjcs  not  agree  with  the  fiersori  and  time  of  Ignatius ;  there  are  no 
dffects  in  the  chronology,  nor  any  anachronisms,  which  are  usually 
found  in  supposititious  works;  there  is  no  mention  made  of  any  he- 
retic that  lived  after  Ignatius  ;  the  errors  that  are  refuted  belong 
to  his  time,  as  that  of  the  Simonians  and  Ebionites,  concerning  the 
passion  and  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ ;  the  tradition  of  the  Church  is 
confir.Tied  according  to  Eusebius:  he  speaks  of  those  gifts  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  that  were  visible  in  the  Church,  8cc.  Upon  the  whole 
natter,  these  Epistles  are  written  with  great  simplicity,  and  bear 
an  apostolical  character."* 

Unable  to  resist  the  powerful  evidence  in  favour  of  these  Epistles, 
the  opponents  of  Episcopacy  maintain  that  those  we  now  possess 
are  full  of  corruptions  and  interpolations.  But  if  you  exclude  from 
these  Epistles,  as  spurious  and  interpolated,  all  that  relates  to  Epis- 
copacy, you  will  destroy  their  sense  and  connection.  The  testimo- 
nies concerning  Episcopacy  are  so  numerous  and  various,  so  essen- 
tial to  the  sense  of  the  author,  that  it  is  impossible  they  could  have 
been,  by  any  ingenuity,  incorporated  with  the  text  of  which  they 
•were  not  originally  a  part. 

We  mav  therefore  sum  up  the  evidence  in  favour  of  the  Epistles 
of  Ignatius,  in  the  words  of  an  able  writer,  who  has  given  a  learn- 
ed and  perspicuous  detail  of  this  evidence.f  "  The  sum  of  the 
matter  is  this :  Polycarfi,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  the  acts 
of  Ignatius'  martyrdom,  and  Ireneus,  in  the  second  century;  On- 
gen,  in  the  third  ;  Eusebius,  Alhanasius,  Chrysostom,  ?LV\d  Jerome^ 
in  the  fourth  ;  and  a  great  number  of  writers  down  to  the  fifteenth 
century,  all  bear  witness  to  these  Epistles. |  And  with  regard  to 
the  internal  evidence,  there  is  nothing  in  the  Epistles  which  indi- 
cates a  period  subsequent  to  that  of  Ignatius.  The  distinction  of 
Bishops  from  Presbyters  was  common  in  the  second  century  ;|| 
the  inscriptions  of  the  Epistles  are  simple,  and  in  the  apostolic  man- 
ner ;  there  is  nothing  which  savours  of  the  Platonic  philosophy, 
■which  prevailed  in  the  Church  in  the  conclusion  of  this,  and  in  the 
next  century ;  in  short,  every  thing  suits  the  time  and  circumstances 
of  the  holy  martyr  when  he  wrote," 

•  Dupin's  Eccl.  Hist.  vol.  i.  on  the  Epistles  of  Ignatim. 

f  Dr.  Bovjden,  in  his  second  letter  to  Dr.  Stiles. 

\  To  these  may  be  added  the  names  of  the  most  learned  men  since  the 
Reformation.  Those  marked  in  italics,  are  not  Episcopalians.  Usher, 
Vossius,  Gratius  ;  Pearson  (who  wrote  a  learned  vindication  of  these  Epis- 
tles), and  Hammond,  Petavius,  Ball,  Wake,  Cave,  Cotelerius,  Grabe,  Du- 
pin, Tillemont,  Le  Clerc,  Bochart,  and  the  learned  Fabricius,  Professor  at 
Hamburg,  in  the  last  century. 

II  Blondel,  Sahnasius,  and  Cbamier,  acknowledge  that,  about  one  hundred 
and  forty  years  after  Christ,  Epigcopacy  prevailed.  -E*^- 


i96  REMARKS  ON  MISCELLANIES. 

Writings  attested  by  such  powerful  external  and  internal  e^^- 
dence  cannot  be  questioned,  without  endangering  the  credibility  of 
all  ancient  writings.  And  it  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius  has  been  called  in  question  only  by 
those  who,  on  account  of  the  decisive  evidence  which  they  give 
in  favour  of  Episcopacy,  are  intereated  in  opposing  them. 


The  author  of  Miscellanies  also  asserts,  that  the  articles  of  the 
Church  of  Englayid  are  Calvinistic  ;  and  that  the  seventeenth  ar- 
ticle in  particular  maintains  the  Calvinifetic  doctrine  of  "  election 
and  reprobation ;"  and  that  those  Episcopalians  who  oppose  this 
doctrine,  "  attack"  the  articles  of  their  Church. 

These  are  very  serious  assertions  :  for,  if  true,  they  involve  the 
great  body  of  the  Clergy  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  almost 
every  individual  among  the  Episcopal  Clergy  in  this  country,  in  the 
criminality  and  odium  of  opposing  the  doctrines  of  their  Church. 

It  is  of  importance  to  ascertain  what  are  the  peculiar  tenets  of 
Calvinism. 

Many  Calvinists  indeed,  with  a  disingenuousness  for  which  it  is 
difficult  to  find  an  apology,  are  in  the  constant  practice  of  ranking 
among  the  fieculiar  tenets  of  Calvinism,  of  appropriating  exclu- 
sively to  the  religious  system  so  called,  the  doctrines  of  the  corrufi- 
tion  and  guilt  of  man — of  the  atonement  and  grace  of  Jesus 
Christ — oi  Justif  cation  through  a  true  and  lively  fa' th  in  him,  as 
tlie  only  mediator  betiveen  God  and  man — of  the  sanctif  cation  of 
the  soul  through  the  grace  of  the  Holy  S/iirit.  But  these  were  doc- 
trines that  prevailed  in  the  Church  long  before  Calvin  imposed 
his  gloomy  system.  They  were  the  glory  and  the  consolation  of 
primitive  martyrs,  long  before  St.  Austin,  in  the  fifth  century, 
first  introduced  the  doctrine  of  fiarticular  absolute  election.  They 
have  been  espoused  by  a  host  of  eminent  Divines,  who,  while  they 
opposed  the  peculiar  tenets  of  Calvinism,  were  zealous  in  pro- 
claiming the  doctrines  of  salvation  through  the  cross  of  Christ. 
These,  indeed,  are  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  England.  But 
the  pretensions,  that  would  confine  these  doctrines  to  the  system  of 
Calvin,  are  equally  unfounded  and  arrogant. 

No  I  the  tenet  which  is  peculiar  to  Calvinism,  and  distinguishes 
this  system  from  all  otlicrs,  is  the  doctrine  of  particular  abso- 
xuTE  ELECTION.  This  doctrine  is  laid  down  in  the  institutes  of 
Calvin,  in  terms  that  are  revolting  to  every  idea  which  reason  or 
sci-ipture  affords  us  of  the  attributes  of  God.  He  divides  the  whole 
human  race  into  the  Elect  and  the  Reprobate;  and  thus  lays  down 
the  decree  of  election  and  reprobation  concerning  them. 

"  Non  enim  pari  conditione  crea/itur  omnes :  sed  aliis  vita  ster- 
na, aliis  damnatio  asterna  preordinatur." 

"  For  all  are  not  created  in  like  estate,  but  to  some  eternal  life,  to 
others  eternal  death  is  forcapfiointed."  Cal.  Inst.  lib.  iii.  chap.  21. 5. 

"  Quos  vero  damnation!  addicit,  his  justo  quidem  et  irreprehen» 
sibili,  sed  incomprehensibili  ipsiusjudicio,  vitx  additum  prccludi." 

♦'  But  those  whom  he  cpjiointeth  to  damnation,  to  them,  we  say,  by 
liis  just  and  irreprehensible,  but  also  incomprehensible  judgment, 
the  ejiiry  of  life  is  blocked  vp,"    Cal.  Inst.  lib.  iii.  chap.  21.  7. 


REMARKS  ON  MISCELLANIES.  19? 

*'  Ergo  si  non  jjossumus  rationem  assignave,cur  suos  misericordia 
idignetur,  nisi  quoniam  ita  illi  placet ;  neque  etiam  in  aliis  repro- 
bandis  aliud  habebimus  quam  ejus  volunlatem." 

"  Therefore  if  we  cannot  assign  a  reason  ivhy  he  shoidd  confer 
mercy  on  those  that  are  his,  but  because  thjis  it  pLcanPth  him ,-  nei- 
ther indeed  shall  we  ha-ve  any  other  cause  in  rejecting  of  others., 
than  his  own  ivill."    Cal.  Ins.  lib.  iii.  chap.  32.  11. 

"  Quemadmodum  sux  erga  electos  vocationis  efficacia,  salutem, 
ad  quam  eos  seterno  consilio  destinaret,  perficit  Dens  ;  ita  sua  ha- 
bit advcrsos  reprobos  judicia,  quibus  consilium  de  iilis  suiim  exe- 
quatur. Quos  ergo  in  vitx  contumeiiam  ct  mortis  exitium  creavit, 
ut  irai  sux  organa  forent,  et  severitatis  excmpla  ;  eos,  ut  in  flnem. 
suam  pei-veniant,  nunc  audiendi  verbi  sui  facultate  priveat,-  nunc 
eju-  prsedicatione  magis  excxcat  et  obstupefacit." 

"  As  God  by  the  effectualness  of  his  calling  towards  the  elect,  per- 
fects  the  salvation  to  which  by  his  eternal  counsel  he  had  afifiointed 
them  ;  so  he  hath  h\s  Judgme7its  against  the  re/irobate,  by  which  he 
executes  his  coun^xl  concerning  them.  Whom  therefore  he  hath 
created  to  the  shatne  of  life  arid  destruction  of  death,  that  they  may 
ie  vessels  of  his  wrath,  and  examp.les  of  his  severity,  them,  that 
they  may  come  to  their  end,  sometime  he  deprives  of  the  fiower  to 
hear  hit  ivord,  and  sometime  he  more  blinds  and  confounds^  by  the 
preaching  of  it."     Cal.  Ins.  lib.  iii.  chap.  24.  12. 

"  Ecce  vocem  ad  cos  dirigit,  sed  ut  magis  obsurdescant :  lucem 
accendit,  sed  ut  reddentur  coiciores :  doctrinam  profert  sed  qua 
magis  obstupescant :  remedium  adhibit,  sed  ne  sanetur." 

"  Behold,  he  directs  his  voice  to  them,  but  that  they  may  become 
the  more  deaf:  he  lighteth  a  light,  but  that  they  may  be  rendered  the 
more  blind :  he  sliowetli  forth  doctrine,  but  thai  they  may  be  made 
more  dull :  he  applies  to  them  a  remedy,  iut  no:  that  they  may  be 
healed."    Cal.  Ins.  lib.  iii.  chap,  24.  13. 

Well  might  Calvin  himself  confess,  that  this  decree  of  election 
nnd  refirobation  is  a  "  horrible  decree."  "Decrctum  quidem 
horribilefateor."      Cal.  Ins.  lib.  iii.  chap.  23.  7. 

Well  may  Oi'firian  have  declared,  "  if  there  arc  any  doctrines 
uncharitable  in  themselves ;  if  there  are  any  doctrines  that  would 
excite  my  zeal  to  extirpate  them  from  the  Church  of  Christ,  they 
are  tlie  doctrines  of  election  and  rejirobation  as  taught  in  the  insti- 
tutes of  Calvin." 

And  yet  this  horriclk  decree,  so  contrary  to  the  attributes  of 
God,  and  to  the  explicit  declarations  of  his  holy  word,  Calvin  hesi- 
tates not  to  found  on  some  doubtful  and  obscure  passages  of  scrip- 
ture, on  texts  evidently  applied,  not  to  the  eternal  destiny  of  indix'i- 
duals,  but  to  the  spiritual  privileges  of  nations  and  commwiities  in 
the  present  world. 

This  doctrine  is  thus  laid  dov/n  in  the  Corfesfiinn  of  Faith  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America.  It  is  laid 
down  in  similar  language  in  the  Confessions  of  Faith  of  the  other 
Calvinistic  Churches. 

"  By  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory,  some 
men  and  angels  arc  predestinated  unto  everlasting  life,  and  others 
foreordained  to  everlasting-  death."  Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  iii.  sec.  3. 

'i"hc  nfxt  section  of  this  chanter  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  re- 


1^8  REMARKS  ON  MISCELLANIES! 

presents  the  number  of  the  predestinated  and  foreordained,  as 
*'  particularly  and  unchangeably  designed,"  as  "  certain  and  defi« 
uite." 

The  next  section  declares  that  those  "  predestinated  unto  life, 
God  hath  chosen  in  Christ  unto  everlasting  glory,  out  of  his  mere 
free  grace  and  love,  without  any  Jbresig/il  of  faith  or  good  works,  or 
perseverance  in  either  of  them,  or  any  other  thing  in  the  creature 
tu  conditions  or  causes  moving  him  thereunto." 

The  conclusion  of  the  sixth  section  declares,  "  Neither  are 
any  other  redeemed  by  Christ,  efFeetualiy  called,  justified,  adopted, 
©r  SHved,  but  the  e/ect  only." 

Tlie  seventh  section  deserves  particular  notice,  as  it  contains 
the  doctrine  usually  distinguished  by  tl\e  term  Rephobation. 

"  The  rest  of  mankind,  God  «vas  pleased,  accordmg  to  the  un- 
searchable counsel  of  his  ov/n  will,  whereby  he  extendeth  or  with- 
draweth  mercy  as  he  pleaseth,  for  the  glory  of  his  sovereign  power 
over  his  creatures,  to /lass  by,  and  to  ordain  them  to  dishonour  and 
wrath  for  their  sin,  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  justice."* 

On  the  subject  of  effectual  ca'ding,  the  Confession  of  Faith  de.- 
Clares,  that  it  is  »'  not  from  any  \.)\m^foreseen  in  man,  who  is  alto^ 
gether  fiassive  therein."     Chap.  x.  sec.  2, 

The  third  section  of  this  chapter  declares,  that  "  Elect  infants 
dying  in  infancy,  are  regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ  through  the 
spirit — so  also  are  other  elect  persons,  who  are  incapable  of  being 
outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word." 

Let  the  reader  consider  well  the  fourth  section  of  this  chapter. 

"  Others  not  elected,  although  they  may  be  called  by  the  mini;  try 
of  the  word,  and  may  have  some  common  operations  of  the  spirit, 
yet  they  never  truly  come  to  Christ,  and  therefore  cc7»7io/  be  saved." 
Here  appears  the  reason  why  those  finally  perish  ^vho  "  never  tru- 
ly come  to  Chi-ist,  and  therefore  cannot  be  saved;"  they  are  "not 
elected."  That  none  but  the  elect  can  be  caved,  is  expressly  de- 
clared in  the  sixth  section  of  the  third  chapter,  quoted  above. 
And  that  those  elected  are  not  elected  in  consequence  of  God's /bre- 
seeing  that  they  would  imfirove  the  means  of  grace,  accept  the  of' 
fers  of  salvation,  and  persevere  wito  the  end,  is  evident  from  the 
section  above  quoted,  which  explicitly  declares  that  the  elect  are 
chosen,  "  without  any  foresight  of  their  faith  or  good  works,  or 
fierseverance  in  either  of  them,  or  any  other  thing  in  the  creature 
as  conditions,  or  causes  moving  thereunto."  The  elect,  therefore, 
are  arbitrarily  unconditionalhj  elected.  The  first  section  of  the 
seventeenth  chapter  declares,  that  the  elect  "  can  neither  totally 
nor  finally  fall  away  from  the  state  of  grace ;  but  shall  certainly 
pei'sevcre  therein  to  the  end,  and  be  eternally  saved." 

•  Calvin  says,  "  Qiics  Deus  preterit,  reprobat" — "  whom  God  passes 
by,  he  reprobates."  "  Ac  multi  quidem,  ac  si  invidiam  a  Deo  repeilere 
vellcnt,  electionem  iia  fatentur  ut  negent  quenquam  reprobari ;  sed  inscite 
nimis  et  pueriliter  ;  quando  ipsa  electio  nisi  reprobationi  opposita  non  sta- 
tet."  "  And  many  indeed  as  though  they  would  drive  away  the  malice  from 
God,  do  so  grant  election,  as  to  deny  that  any  man  is  reprobated  ;  but 
this  too  igr.orantly  and  childishly ;  foratniucb  as  election  ittelf  "would  not 
stand  unieis  it  ivere  tet  contrary  to  reprobation."  Cal.  Iiwt.  lib.  iii.  chap.  23.  Iv 


REMARKS  ON  MISCELLANIES.  199 

■  The  author  of  Miscellanres  has  been  pleased  to  observe,  in  one  of 
his  numhers.  that  he  beiieved  Episcopalians  in  general  were  ip-no- 
rant  that  the  tenets  of  Episcopacy  were  so  seriously  and  solemnly 
propagffted.  Perhaps  it  may  with  equal  truth  be  asserted,  that  the 
great  body  of  Presbvterians  are  not  aware  that  the  tenets  of  elec" 
tion  and  reprobation  are  thus  explicitly  and  solemnly  set  forth  ia 
the  Confession  of  Faith  of  their  Church. 

Now  that  the  articles  of  ihr  Church  of  England^  and  of  the  Pro- 
testant Efi'scofiat  Church  in  America,  maintain  these  peculiar 
tenets  of  Calviti'fim,  is  absolutely  and  positively  denied. 

The  ilueentli  article  of  the  Church  declares,  that  "  Christ,  by 
the  sacr.fice  of  himself  took  away  the  sins  of  the  ivorld."  The  six- 
teenth article  declares,  that  ''  after  we  have  received  the  Holy 
Gh'ibt,  we  may  depart  from  grace  given,  and  fall  into  sin,  and,  by 
the  grace  of  God,  we  may  arise  and  amend  our  Hvcs."  The  thirty- 
first  article  declares,  that  "  the  offering  of  Christ  once  m:ide  is 
tfiat  perfect  redemption),  propitiation",  and  satisfaction  for  a//  the  ains 
of  the  whole  laorld,  both  original  an<!  actual;  and  there  is  none 
ether  satisfaction  for  sin,  but  that  alone."  In  perfect  conformity 
with  these  declarations  are  her  liturgy,  offices,  and  homilies ;  all 
which  contain  numerous  declarations  absolutely  irreconcileable  with 
the  peculiar  tenets  of  Calvinism.  There  are  none  of  the  articles  of 
the  Church  of  England  which  contain  language  or  sentiments  simi- 
lar to  those  contained  in  the  Confessions  of  Faith  of  the  Calvinistic 
churches. 

The  only  article  that  can  be  adduced  in  proof  of  the  Calvinism 
of  the  Church  of  England  is  the  seventee?ith  article. 

Now,  let  it  be  remembered,  that  this  article  is  entirely  silent  on 
the  tenet  of  refirobation.  It  says  nothing  in  respect  to  those  among 
mankind,  whom  God  "  hath  passed  by,  and  ordained  to  dishonour 
and  wrath."  This  is  an  important  doctrine  of  Calvinism,  to  which 
the  Church  of  England  is  utterly  a  stranger.  And  when  the  au- 
thor of  Miscellanies  talks  of  "  the  article  of  the  Church  which  re- 
spects election  and  reprobation^"  he  talks  of  an  article  which  has 
no  existence.  The  part  of  the  article  which  respects  "  firedesti- 
nation  and  election,"  is  as  follows  : — "  Predestination  to  life  is  the 
everlasting  purpose  of  God,  whereby  (before  the  foundations  of  the 
world  were  laid)  he  hath  constantly  decreed,  by  his  counsel,  secret 
to  us,  to  deliver  from  curse  and  damnation,  those  whom  he  hath 
chosen  in  Christ  out  of  mankind,  and  to  bring  them  by  Christ  to 
ever'asting  salvation,  as  vessels  made  to  honour.  Wherefore  they, 
which  be  endued  with  so  excellent  a.  benefit  of  God,  be  called  ac- 
cording to  God's  purpose  by  his  Spirit  working  in  due  season  :  they 
through  grace  oI)ey  the  calling:  they  be  justified  freely:  thev  be 
made  Sons  of  God  by  adoption  :  they  be  made  like  the  image  of  his 
only  begotten  Son  Jesus  Christ :  they  walk  religiously  in  good  works, 
and,  at  length,  by  God's  mercy  they  attain  to  everlasting  felicity. 

Now  the  article  simply  maintains  the  doctrine  of  *'  predestina- 
tion unto  life."  That  there  is  such  a  predestination,  all  denominations 
of  Christians  acknowledge.  The  point  in  dispute  between  Calvinists 
and  their  opponents  is  'mYes\iftc\.X.oX\i^  characteristics  or  iha  founda- 
tion of  this  predestination.  Is  it  arbitrary  and  unconditional,  or  the 
contrary  ?    Is  it  founded  on  the  di\'m<i  foreknowledge  of  those  who. 


200  REMARKS  ON  MISCELLANIES. 

•woirid  accept  the  means  of  grace  ;  or  is  it  indefiendent  of  this  fore- 
knowledge ?  Are  a  certain  number  predestinated  unto  life  without 
any  foreknowledge  of  their  faith,  £cc.  or  are  their  faith,  their  good 
■works,  wrought  through  grace,  and  accepted  for  the  merits  of 
Christ,  the  conditions  of  this  predestination  ?  This  last  is  the 
predestination  maintained  by  anti-Caivinists,  and  expressly  dis- 
claimed by  Calvinists  ;  who  all  maintain  that  this  predestination  is 
"  without  any  foreknowledge  of  faith,  of  good  works,  of  perseverance, 
or  any  other  cause  in  the  creature  moving  thereunto."  The  seven- 
teenth article  of  the  Church  makes  no  such  declaration,  holds  no 
such  sentiment.  We  are  therefore  to  construe  the  article  in  a  dif- 
ferent sense;  and  to  believe  with  the  Apostle,  Rom.  viii.  28,  that 
those  are  "  chosen  in  Christ,"  whom  God  "  foreknew"  would  be- 
lieve and  obey  the  Gospel.  These  are  they  who  are  called^  who 
are  jus  (i^ed,  &c. 

In-no  other  ai'ticle  is  the  subject  of  election  mentioned.  But  it 
Tuns  through  almost  every  chapter  of  the  Confession  of  Faith 
of  the  Calvinistic  churches.  It  is  the  coroer  stone  of  Calvinism. 
It  is  the  spirit  which  extends  its  sullen  reign  through  every  part 
of  the  gloomy  edifice  which  Calvin  erected.  The  £/ect,  uncondi- 
tionally elected,  without  any  "  foreknowledge  of  their  faith,  or  any 
other  cause  in  them  moving  thereunto,"  are  alone  the  objects  of 
those  "  good  tidings,"  which,  it  was  declared,  should  be  for  all 
mankind.  They  alone  are  "  the  seed"  whom  that  blessed  Saviour, 
■who  shed  his  blood  as  "  a  jirojiidation  for  the  sins  of  the  world," 
"  redeems,  calls,  justifies,  sanctifies  and  glorifies."  Well  might 
the  acute  and  learned  Jortin  characterize  Calvinism  as  a  system 
of  "  human  creatures  without  liberty,  faith  without  reason,  and  a 
God  without  mercy  !"  This  character  of  the  system  is  justified 
by  its  natural  and  necessary  consequences.,  though  it  is  but  justice 
to  acknowledge  that  these  consequences  are  disclaimed  by  its  advoi 
cates. 

The  above  strictures  are  dictated  by  no  sentiment  of  disrespect 
for  those  denominations  who,  in  the  exercise  of  an  acknowledged 
right,  maintain  the  tenets  of  Calvinism.  With  many  individuals  of 
these  denominations  the  writer  is  in  habits  of  intimate  acquaintance 
and  friendship.  The  strictures  aie  purely  dejensive.  They  arc 
imperiously  called  forth  by  the  charge  of  the  author  of  Miscel- 
lanies, that  the  articles  of  the  Church  of  JLngland  are  Calvin- 
istic; by  the  charge,  assiduously  propagated,  that,  while  the  ar- 
ticles of  this  Church,  and  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  America, 
maintain  the  tenets  of  Calvinism,  the  Clergy  of  those  churches 
maintain  opposite  doctrines,  and  are,  therefore,  guilty  of  opposing 
the  standards  of  their  Churches.  This  charge,  so  materially  af- 
fecting the  consistency,  the  reputation,  and  the  character  of  the 
Episcopal  Clergy^  could  in  no  other  way  be  refuted,  tlian  by  com- 
paring the  Confessions  of  Faith  of  the  Calvinistic  Churches  with  the 
articles  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  thus  ascertaining  their  dissi- 
milarity and  opposition. 

If  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  were  Calvinistic,  v/ould 
the  Calvinistic  Clergy  have  thought  it  necessary  to  substitute  others 
in  their  place?  Now,  it  is  a  well  known  fact,  that,  in  the  reign  of 
Elizabeth,  the  Calvinists  ■were  anxious  to  substitute  in  the  place 


AN  EPISCOPALIAN.     No.  II.  201 

•f  these  articles,  Avhat  are  called  "  the  Lambeth  Articles,"  in 
■which  the  tenets  of  Calvinism  are  couched  in  nearly  the  same  lan- 
guage in  which  they  are  exhibited  in  the  institutes  of  Calvin  and 
the  public  confessions  of  the  churches  modelled  on  his  system.  In 
addition  to  the  direct  evidence  before  exhibited,  here  is  strong  pre- 
sumfithie  proof  that  the  articles  of  the  Church  of  England  do  not 
merit  the  charge  of  Calvinism. 

That  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  America  does  not  con- 
sider the  articles  as  sanctioning  the  peculiar  tenets  of  Calvinism, 
■will  not  admit  of  a  doubt.  Articles  were  proposed  for  considera- 
tion by  the  General  Convention  of  that  Church,  in  1799 ;  but  were 
not  acted  upon,  in  consequence  of  a  determination  to  adopt  the  ar- 
ticles of  the  Church  of  England,  as  ihey  were,  in  tola.  The  Con- 
vention of  1801  unanimoudij  adopted  these  articles;  and  all  the 
members  of  this  Convention  were  decidedly  awrz-Co/t'/n/s/zc.  What 
stronger  proof  of  the  sense  in  which  they  received  these  articles  ? 
The  Convention  possessed  full  power  to  model  the  articles  as  they 
pleased.  They  would  have  all  agreed  in  opposing  the  distinguish- 
ing tenets  of  Calvinism.  Had  they  believed  that  the  articles  were 
Calvlnistic,  it  is  absurd,  and  in  the  highest  degree  dishonourable  to 
them,  to  suppose  that  they  would  have  adopted  articles  contrary  ta 
their  sentiments.  There  could  have  been  no  apprehension  of  opposi- 
tion from  the  great  body  of  the  Laitv.  For  it  is  a  fact,  that  a  large 
proportion  of  the  Laity,  even  of  the  Calvinistic  churches,  do  not 
believ^e  the  doctrine  of  election  and  reprobation  as  stated  in  their 
Confessions  of  Faith.  Among  Episcopalians,  these  tenets  have 
scarcely  any  advocates.  Thanks  to  God,  these  doctrines,  which  re- 
present him  not  as  a  just  and  gracious  Father^  the  character  in 
■which  he  delights  we  should  behold  him,  but  as  a  stern  and  inexorable 
Sovereign^  are  fast  hastening  into  disrepute.  No;  the  Convention 
believed  that  the  imputation  of  Calvinism  cast  upon  the  articles 
was  wholly  unfounded.  And  not  being  disposed  to  meddle  with  those 
who  are  "  given  to  change,"  they  adopted,  without  alteration,  the 
articles  which  they  had  received  from  their  venerable  parent,  the 
Church  of  England,  and  which  the  Reformers  of  that  Church  had 
sealed  with  their  blood.  Ed. 


Fsr  the  Albany  CeTitinel. 
AN  EPISCOPALIAN.  No.  II. 
To  the  Author  of  the  "  Miscellanizs," 
Sir, 


I 


HAVE  seen  your  letter  to  me,  in  the  Albany  Ccntinel  of  the 
fith  October,  and  am  pleased  at  finding  that  our  correspondence  is 
not  likely  to  be  embittered  by  asperity  or  incivility. 

The  first  matter  which  I  wish  to  notice  in  it,  is  your  declaration 
of  your  never  having  meant  to  say,  that  the  author  of  the  pamph- 
let pleaded  for  pavitj-.     I  avail  myself  of  this  as  of  what  I  trust 

2D 


202  AN  EPISCOPALIAN.    No.  II. 

will  be  the  ground  of  our  future  agreement.  But,  while  I  hope  that 
your  declaration  will  be  as  decisive  with  others  as  it  is  with  me, 
you  must  permit  me  to  think  that  there  is  apparently,  in  your  ex- 
hibition of  some  passages  of  the  pamphlet,  the  meaning-  of  which 
you  have  discharged  yourself. 

You  have  done  away  that  apparent  meaning  of  the  first  passage, 
noticed  by  me,  by  printing  the  whole  of  it.  I  allude  to  the  propo- 
sal of  keeping  in  viev/,  under  a  temporary  departure  from  the  suc- 
cession, the  obtaining  of  it  as  soon  as  conveniently  might  be.  Al- 
though you  now  give  the  proposal  entire,  you  are  not  willing  to 
admit  that  injustice  was  done  the  author  by  omitting  it.  Of  designed 
injustice  I  have  made  no  charge.  But  its  tendency  to  mislead, 
however  unintended  by  you,  I  inferred  from  the  circumstances,  that 
you  had  been  engaged  in  a  controversy,  wherein  Episcopacy  on  one 
side,  and  parity  on  the  other,  had  been  the  points  maintained ;  that 
your  first  mention  of  the  pamphlet  was  with  the  declai-ation,  that 
you  had  considered  it  as  releasing  you  from  the  necessity  of  expos- 
ing arguments  of  your  opponents  in  favour  of  Episcopacy ;  that 
you  represented  the  author  as  making  a  voyage  for  a  purpose  which 
he  was  convinced  might  be  accomplished  as  Well  at  home  ;  and  that, 
according  to  your  opinion,  the  reasonings  of  the  pamphlet  applied 
as  forcibly  for  a  final  as  for  a  temporary  departure.  Now  it  is 
nothing  to  the  present  point,  that,  in  the  expressions  the  last  quoted 
from  you,  the  author  may  have  been  supposed  not  to  have  in- 
tended to  serve  the  cause  of  parity.  I  deny  all  tendency  of  the 
pamphlet  tliat  way ;  and,  under  these  circumstances,  I  submit  to 
the  impartial,  whether  the  express  proposal  of  keeping  the  suc- 
cession in  view  were  not  necessary  for  the  giving  a  connect  idea  of 
the  plan  proposed. 

You  woultf  not,  I  think,  have  charged  me  with  what  "  looks  like 
an  evasion,"  if  you  had  apprehended  the  sense  of  the  part  of  my 
letter  to  which  that  expression  is  applied.  I  intended  to  state  your 
meaning  to  be  (but  I  may  have  sacrificed  perspicuity  to  brevity), 
tliat  the  reasoning  of  the  pamphlet  went  to  the  point  of  dispensing 
with  Episcopal  ordination  in  all  cases ;  as  had  been  done  in  Eliza- 
beth's time  in  some.  My  understanding  of  you  thiis  Avas,  I  think, 
natural ;  because  the  Jorj7ier  was  the  purpose  to  which  you  had  ap- 
plied yourself  in  your  controversy  with  Cyprian  and  others.  You 
had  not  been  pleading  for  the  dispensing  with  Episcopal  ordination 
in  any  case  of  exigency.  But  you  might  have  judged  that  the  doing 
of  this  could  only  have  been  on  such  ground  as  applied  generally. 
This  is  what  I  understand  to  be  your  purpose ;  and  what  I  do  not 
find  supported  by  any  reasonings  in  the  pamphlet. 

Your  application  of  the  term,  "  as  some  conceive,"  to  Episcopa- 
lians, instead  of  to  their  opponents,  has  been  corrected  by  you  in 
such  a  manner  as,  in  my  opinion,  more  than  balances  the  mistake. 
In  regard  to  your  quotation  from  Bishop  Hoadly,  and  your  re«. 
presenting  of  him  as  distinctly  saying,  what  you  now  contend  for 
as  only  a  fair  inference  from  him  ;  I  should  not  have  taken  advant- 
age of  this  circumstance  were  It  not,  that,  in  the  course  of  my 
reading  and  my  conversation,  I  have  occasionally  perceived  an 
ambiguity  in  the  use  of  the  vvords  "  of  divine  appointment."  That 
the  Apostles  appointed  a  ministry  in  three  different  degrees,  is^ 


AN  EPISCOPALIAN.  No.  III.  20S 

-what  would  liave  been  contended  for  by  Bishop  Hoadly ;  and  he 
has  said  nothing  to  the  contrary  in  the  passage  in  question.  But 
if,  under  these  terms,  it  be  understood  that  the  appointment  was 
accompanied  by  any  thing  declaratory  of  perpetual  and  unalterable 
obligation  in  every  exigency  and  necessity  whatsoever,  the  contrary 
to  this  is,  I  confess,  a  fair  inference  from  his  words,  and  from  the 
citation  of  them  in  the  pamphlet. 

You  complain,  that  after  printing  a  certain  paragi-aph  from  the 
pamphlet,  I  did  not  subjoin  other  paragraphs  which  follow  ;  mean- 
ing principally,  as  I  suppose,  what  has  just  now  been  referred  to 
from  Bishop  Hoadly.  I  began  with  an  acknowledgment  that  you 
liad  done  the  author  no  injustice,  as  to  the  point  to  which  tliat  pas- 
sage applies ;  and  I  afterv/ards  observed  that  it  makes  a  distinction 
between  apostolic  practice,  and  a  m;itter  of  indispensable  I'equisi- 
tion.  But  you  think  I  should  have  gi\en  the  paragraphs,  because 
they  were  necessary  for  the  understanding  of  the  pamphlet.  The 
object  of  my  letter  was  not  to  explain  the  pamphlet  generally,  but 
to  rescue  some  parts  of  it  from  inadvertent  misrepresentation.  And 
when  I  prmted  one  paragraph  at  large,  it  was  because  it  had  been 
printed  by  you  in  part  only,  although  the  whole  was  necessary  to 
the  sense.     The  other  you  had  given  entire. 

My  incidental  mention  of  the  object  of  my  letter  reminds  me  to 
request  of  you,  that  if  there  are  some  matters  in  yours  not  neces- 
sarily connected  with  that  object,  you  will  not  think  it  disrespectful 
in  me,  that  I  pass  them  by  in  silence. 

AN  EPISCOPALIAN. 


For  the  Albany  Centinel, 
AN  EPISCOPALIAN.    No.  IIL 
To  the  Author  of  the  "  Miscellanies.' 
Sir, 


H, 


.AVING  now  before  me  your  letter  in  the  Centinel  of  the  llih 
October,  I  i-eadily  admit  your  acknowledgment  of  the  mistake  of 
the  quotation  from  Neal's  history.  And,  indeed,  I  have  been  con- 
fident, that  a  second  attention  to  the  passage  would  bring  the  true 
intent  to  view  :  especially  as  it  would  occur  to  you,  how  improbable 
•it  is,  that  a  professed  Episcopalian,  addressing  the  Episcopal 
Church  for  a  purpose  which  interfered  with  the  prejudices  of  many, 
should  have  quoted  the  opinion  of  the  Smectymnuan  Divines,  however 
personally  respectable,  as  authority  with  that  body.  It  would  not 
liave  been  suiTDrising  if  the  supposed  evidence  of  meaning  had  made 
the  author  of  the  paragraph  somewhat  negligent  in  his  manner  of 
quoting  Mv.  Neal.  This,  however,  in  my  judgment,  is  not  the  case ; 
the  note  being  connected  by  an  asterisk,  with  a  fact  said  to  be  ac- 
taowledged  by  both  parties.    Of  the  acknowledgment  of  it  by  one 


204  AN  EPISCOPALIAN.    No.  III. 

pf  them,  there  could  be  no  doubt ;  and  therefore  the  note  might  be 
thought  to  apply  evidently  to  the  acknowledgment  of  it  by  the 
other. 

It  surprises  me  much  that  you  should  consider  the  passage  above 
referred  to,  as  carrying  the  same  meaning  with  another,  which  ex- 
presses the  mere  presidency  of  a  Bishop  in  a  general  concourse 
of  Christians.  This  passage  supposes  the  existence  of  Bishops  dur- 
ing the  whole  tract  of  time  referred  to  ;  while  the  other  affirms  the 
rise  of  them  during  that  tract  of  time,  in  all  parts  of  the  Christian 
world,  in  violation  of  original  establishment  and  existing  habits ; 
an  event,  of  which,  in  the  estimation  of  Episcopalians  at  least,  there 
is  not  the  simdoiv  of  evidence.  And  then  the  part  the  Bishop  is 
described  as  taking  in  the  business  of  debate  and  determination  is 
very  short  of  his  duty  generally  ;  not  extending  to  the  preaching 
of  the  word,  the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  and  the  ordain- 
ing to  the  ministry.  Yet  you  think  this  passage  sufficient  for  your 
purpose  ;  that  is,  evidence  of  what  the  author  of  the  pamphlet  con- 
ceived to  be  the  origin  of  Bishops. 

You  continue  to  lament  that  the  government  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  was  not  founded  on  the  plan  repi-esented  in  the  pamphlet. 
I  know  of  no  difference  of  principle,  unless  it  should  be  considered 
as  such,  that  there  was  not  a  temporary  departure  from  Episco- 
pacy;  the  ground  for  which  you  acknowledge  to  have  been  done 
away.  But,  you  say  that  the  sentiments  of  the  pamphlet  remain  ; 
that  is,  sentiments  declaratory  of  what  might  have  been  done  in  an 
exigency  no  longer  existing.  But  you  add,  the  author  expected 
the  necessity  to  continue  longer.  Probably  he  did ;  and  he  may  have 
thought  with  many  judicious  persons,  that,  however  defeated  the 
design  of  subjugating  America,  the  armies  of  Britain  would  be 
•withdrawn,  without  an  acknov/ledgment  of  our  independence  for 
some  years  ;  as  had  been  done  in  the  contest  between  Spain  and  the 
Netherlands.  What  would  this  prove,  but  that  the  author  was; 
mistaken,  and  that  the  war  ended  much  more  to  his  satisfaction,  and 
probably  to  yours,  than  he  had  expected.  But  you-  think  the  Epis- 
copal Church  might  have  continued  to  have  the  three  orders,  al- 
though giving  up  the  succession  ;  and  that  this  would  have  led  to 
her  union  with  other  Churches ;  that  is,  she  might  have  given  up 
■what  she  conceives  to  be  a  constituent  part  of  her  institutions,  and 
coeval  with  her  holy  religion  :  in  the  mere  doing  of  which  I  see  little 
ground  of  union  with  otliers ;  but  much  ground  of  disunion  within 
herself. 

Relying  on  the  sincerity  of  j'our  declared  benevolence  to  other  de- 
nominations than  your  own,  1  will  take  the  liberty  of  addressing  to 
you  some  sentiments  lo  the  same  effect,  merely  in  the  exercise  of  the 
allowable  freedom  with  v^hich  you  have  communicated  to  me  yours. 
What  I  would  principally  say  to  this  purpose  is,  that,  in  order  to 
cultivate  mutual  toleration  in  our  respective  communions,  we  should 
bear  with  some  measure  of  mutual  intolerance ;  and  much  more, 
with  what  we  may  conceive  to  be  such,  though  not  deserving  of 
the  name,  being  resolvable  into  opinion,  void  of  malice.  To  ex- 
plain my  meaning  by  a  few  supposed  cases.  Should  any  Presbyte- 
rian Church  declare  (which  I  do  not  know  to  be  done  by  any,  and 
?s  certainly  not  done  by  the  body  most  commonly  distinguished  by 


AN  EPISCOPALIAN.    No.  III.  TOJ 

(hat  name)  that  parity  of  the  ministry  is  necessary  to  the  existence 
of  a  Church,  I  should  suppose  them  intending  to  upliold  what  they 
thought  CJiristian  verity  ;  and  diat  the  bad  aspect  it  would  have  on 
the  condition  of  Episcopalians  were  a  circumstance  to  whicli  they 
could  not  accommodate  their  system.  Should  any  members  of  such 
a  body  (and  I  am  now  stating  what  I  have  known  to  happen)  consi- 
dei'  Episcopacy  such  an  usurpation  that  it  is  unlawful  to  hear  the 
■word  or  to  receive  the  ordinances  from  a  njinistry  acting  under  it, 
I  should  recollect  that  their  salvation  is  too  serious  a  matter  to  ex- 
pect the  means  of  it  to  be  accommodated  to  my  ease  or  satisfaction. 
Now,  to  take  the  subject  in  another  line.  Had  the  Episcopal 
Church  declared  (which  siie  has  not)  that  the  sacraments  are  inva- 
lid from  any  other  than  an  Episcopalian  ministry  ;  or,  should  any  of 
her  Ministers  maintain  (as  I  have  known  done,  in  consequence  of 
what  appeared  to  them  to  result  fairly  and  necessarily  from  her 
declarations  and  her  firacticc)  that  the  acts  of  any  other  than  an 
Episcopalian  ministry  are  generally  invahd ;  although  I  should  con- 
sider it  a  matter  fairly  subject  to  temperate  discussion  from  the 
press ;  yet  I  do  not  think  it  an  insult  either  to  societies  or  to  indi- 
viduals, unless  this  should  appear  in  the  terms  under  which  the 
argument  were  conducted.  I  do  not  see  any  other  grounds  on 
•which  mutual  forbearance,  consistently  with  variety  of  opinion,  can 
be  maintained.  Episcopacy  and  Presbytery  out  of  the  question ; 
I  could  name  to  you  a  score  of  preachers,  whose  discourses  conti- 
nually consign  to  damnation  very  many  who  (I  am  persuaded),  in 
your  estimation,  as  well  as  mine,  would  be  thought  entitled  to  the 
Christian  character.  If  this  is  to  be  held  a  ground  of  personal 
offence,  where  is  it  to  stop  ?  In  short,  under  the  happy  toleration 
of  our  laws,  its  advantages  in  one  way  must  l)e  immensely  counter- 
balanced in  another,  unless  we  apply  to  the  present  subject,  what 
is  said  by  the  Roman  poet, 

"  Hanc  veniara  damns,  petimusque  vicisslm." 

In  what  degree  sentiments  of  this  sort  tend  to  promote  an  union 
of  chui'ches,  it  would  be  difficult  to  ascertain  ;  but  I  am  disposed  to 
believe,  that  their  effect  would  be  considerable.  Animosity  preced- 
ed division.  Forbearance  and  good  will  must  precede  union.  Of 
quarrel  on  any  legal  ground  there  is  none ;  while,  for  the  conCraryy 
there  is  abundant  motive  in  a  consideration  which,  though  arising 
from  what  is  a  dire  evil  in  itself,  may  in  this  way  render  that  evil 
productive  of  much  good.  I  allude  to  the  increase  of  infidelity. 
This  gains  much  more  from  the  animosities  of  Christians,  than  from 
their  separate  worship  ;  which,  however  much  to  be  lamented,  is 
resolvable  into  causes  consistent  with  the  acknowledging  of  the 
same  scriptures  ;  with  the  pleading  of  the  same  evidence  of  a  di- 
x'ine  power  in  the  establishment  of  Christianity ;  with  the  pointing 
to  the  same  progressive  accomjjlishment  of  its  prophecies ;  and, 
above  all,  with  the  adorning  of  their  profession  by  their  lives  and 
conversation.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  tiiis  mutual  forbearance  iu 
advocating  our  respective  oj)inions,  will  be  at  last  the  mean  of  ad- 
vancing that  visible  union  so  favourable  to  maintaining  the  '*  unity 
of  the  spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace,"  and  in  which  we  shall  "  glo- 
rify" God  not  only  with  "  one  heart,"  but  also  with  one  "  nioutli." 


See  VINDEX.    No.  II. 

I  wish  to  conclude  with  my  most  ample  acknowledgments  of  the 
liberality  of  your  last  paragraph  j  and  with  expressing  my  opinion, 
that,  judging  by  my  own  feelings,  I  should  suppose  of  the  gentle- 
man whom  you  name  is  the  author  of  the  pamphlet,  that  he  would 
thankfully  accept  the  attentions  you  so  politely  tender  him,  if  an 
opportunity  should  offer. 

AN  EPISCOPALIAN. 


For  the  Albany  CentineU 

VINDEX.    No.  II. 

To  the  Author  of  "  Miscellanies*" 

Sir, 

X.  ROM  the  declarations  of  the  printers,  the  public  were  led  to 
expect  that  the  controversy  concerning  Church  government  would 
soon  be  terminated.  You  have  thought  proper  to  renew  it,  and  the 
printers  have  indulged  you.  I  claim  from  their  impartiality  the  pri- 
vilege of  a  reply.  If  ihe  Episcopal  writers  have  hitherto  received 
every  indulgence,  you  certainly  have  no  reason  to  complain.  Your 
communications  have  always  been  promptly  and  correctly  inserted  ; 
and  the  printers  have  graced  them  with  their  fairest  types. 

It  is  an  easy  matter  for  a  writer,  who  deals  principally  in  bold  as- 
sertion, to  be  very  concise ;  and  thus  to  be  able  to  apply  to  those 
who  are  anxious  to  establish  every  thing  they  advance,  the  very 
elegant  epithet  of  being  "  long  winded."  You  brought  assertion 
upon  assertion  so  rapidly,  that  it  was  not  an  easy  matter  even  for 
*'  A  Layman,"  for  "  Cyprian,"  and  for  "  Detector"  to  keep  up  with 
3'ou.  Careless  of  proof,  and  proudly  fancying  that  your  ijise  dixit 
-would  be  received  as  sacred,  you  appeared  to  think  that  your  only 
business  was  to  assert.  Your  opponents,  reverencing  their  cause, 
and  respecting  the  understanding  of  their  readers,  thought  it  their 
duty  to  bring  forward  full  and  fair  reasoning;  We  readily  concede 
to  you  the  merit  of  brevity. 

We  trust  that  this  controversy,  which  you  commenced  in  a  news- 
paper, and  where,  of  course,  those  whom  you  assailed  were  obliged 
to  follow  you,  will  serve  to  convince  you  that  the  Episcopal  Church 
has  sons  able  and  determined  to  defend  her. 

If  your  opponents  have  introduced  new  matter,  it  is  a  merit  which 
you  do  not  appear  anxious  to  obtain.  In  your  late  publications,  you 
have  recourse  to  your  old  weapons.  You  endeavour  to  connect 
Episcofiacy  vi\\h  Pofiery ;  to  excite  the  public  indignation  against 
the  "Companion  for  the  Altar,"  and  for  "  the  Festivals  and  Fasts;" 
and  to  pervert  the  pamphlet  which  you  attribute  to  Bishop  White, 
to  support  your  opinions. 

You  assert  that  the  prevalence  of  Episcopacy  for  fifteen  hundred 
yeai-s  after  Christ,  is  an  argument  much  stronger  in  favour  of  Po' 
fiery  than  Efiiscofiacy.    What,  Sir  !  Do  you  mean  to  assert  that 


VINDEX.    No.  ir.  2or 

during  the  first  ages  of  the  Church,  when,  according  to  the  conces. 
sion  of  even  the  advocates  of  Presbytery,  the  Episcopal  govern- 
ment arose  ?  Do  you  mean  to  assert  that  during  tliis  period  the  in- 
fallibility and  supremacy  of  the  Pope,  transubstantiation,  and  otiier 
corruptions  of  Popery  prevailed  ?  If  this  be  your  intention,  you  will 
excuse  nie  for  doubting  your  credibility  as  an  ecclesiastical  histo- 
rian, and  your  talents  as  a  defender  of  the  Protestant  faith. 

Episcopalians,  equally  Avith  you,  maintain,  that  "  the  scriptures 
are  the  only  and  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice."  But  in  inter- 
fireting  this  rule,  are  we  to  discard  contcmporaiy  evidence  ?  Arc 
we  to  reject  the  testimony  of  the  primitive  Church  ?  You,  doubtless, 
maintain,  that  the  scriptures  establish  the  divinity  of  Christ.  The 
Socinians  deny  it.  I'Lpiscopalians  maintain  that  the  scriptures  esta- 
blish Episcopacy.  You  deny  it.  Now,  if  you  can  prove,  from  the 
testimony  of  the  Fathers,  that  the  primitive  Church  received  the 
doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ ;  and  if  we  can  prove,  from  the 
same  testimony,  that  the  primitive  Church  received  Episcopacy  as 
a  divine  institution  ;  sliould  not  this  satisfy  the  Socinian  ;  should 
not  this  satisfy  you,  Sir,  that  these  doctrines  are  contained  in  the 
scriptures  ?  On  what  other  ground  cau  you  account  for  their  uni- 
versal reception  in  the  Church  ? 

You  affect  to  doubt  that  Calvin  ever  urged  the  plea  of  necessity 
ioT  renouncing  Episcopacy.  The  Layman,  in  his  first  address,  quot- 
ed the  declaration  of  Calvin  on  this  subject  ;  and  I  beg  leave  to 
repeat  it.  You  will  find  it  in  his  work  "  concerning  the  reforma- 
tion of  churches." — "  If  they  would  give  us,  says  Calvin,  such  an 
hierarchy^  in  which  the  Bit^hofis  should  so  excel,  as  that  they  did  not 
refuse  to  be  suliject  to  Christ,  and  to  depend  upon  him  as  their  only- 
head,  and  refer  all  to  him,  then  I  will  confess  that  tlicy  are  wor- 
thy of  all  anatheinas,  if  any  such  shall  be  found,  who  will  not  re- 
verence it,  and  submit  themselves  to  it  with  the  utmost  obedience.'* 
Mere  Calvin  expressly  pleads,  that  they  would  not  give  him  a  pri- 
mitive E/nscofiacij,  such  an  Episcopacy  as  the  Church  of  England 
possessed,  and  on  the  possession  of  which  he  and  Beza  cordially  con- 
gratulated her.  Here  he  denounces  those  as  "  worthy  of  all  oraa- 
tJicmas^  if  any  such  shall  be  founds  who  will  not  reverence  it  and 
submit  themselves  to  it  with  the  utmost  obedience."  I  say  not  that 
the  plea  was  well  founded ;  for  I  believe  that  Calvin  could  have 
procured  a  primitive  Episcopac}'.  I  say  not,  that,  as  he  advanced 
in  the  work  of  reformation,  he  adhered  to  this  plea.  It  is  sufficient 
fcr  my  purpose  that  at  one  period  he  certainly  advanced  it.  The 
ehagrin  wiiich  you  discover  whenever  this  declaration  of  Calvin 
is  mentioned,  is  perfectly  natural.  The  declaration  proves  the 
veneration  which,  at  one  period,  your  great  master  entertained  for 
Episcopacy,  and  the  qualms  of  conscience  which  he  felt  in  renouncing 
it.  Calvin,  yoti  insist,  might  have  been  a  Bishop,  perhaps  with  the 
honourable  titles  of  "  Riglit  Reverend  Father  in  God,"  and  "your 
Grace." — Ah  1  but  he  would  not  then  have  been  foundeh  ok 
THE  Church  in  Geneva. 

You  assert,  that  "  tliere  was  no  opportunity  of  effectually  op* 
posing  Episcopacy  till  the  period  of  the  Reformation."  What, 
Sir  \  have  wc  not  been  told  that  Episco])acy  was  an  usurpation — an 
usurpation  tUiit  reared  its  formidablehead  in  the  early  ages  I    \Va6 


ro8  VINDEX.    No.  n. 

not  the  period  of  its  first  appearance  the  most  favourable  perioiJ 
for  crushing  this  monster  that  was  destroying  the  sacved  /iresbyfery 
of  the  Cliurch  ?  Must  not  Episcopacy  at  this  period  have  been 
viewed  as  an  impious  attack  upon  the  institutions  of  the  Apostles^ 
•whose  memories  were  then  cherished  with  the  most  sacred  fei-vour? 
Would  those  venerable  and  pious  men  who,  through  the  tortures  of 
the  rack,  and  through  the  flames  of  the  stake,  obtained  the  crown 
of  martyrdom  ;  would  they  have  silently  permitted  the  foundations 
of  the  Church  to  be  subverted  ?  Would  those  illustrious  lights  of 
Christianity,  in  whom  humility  shone  with  the  most  splendid  lustre, 
would  they  have  become  not  merely  accessories,  but  princi/ials  in 
this  impious  work  of  usurpation,  in  this  lawless  grasp  of  dominion? 
Alas  I  that  in  those  degenerate  days,  there  was  no  Miscellaneous 
Author  to  step  forth  the  bold  champion  of  oppressed  truth,  and  to 
lift  up  his  fearless  voice  against  these  usurping  "  Loi'ds  in  God's 
heritage." 

The  pamphlet  which  you  attribute  to  Dr.  White  is  the  burden  of 
your  song.  This,  with  you,  is  "  law  and  gospel."  You  deride  and 
discard  the  testimony  of  the  primitive  Fathers  of  the  Cluirch,  and 
yet  you  appear  willing  to  rest  your  cause  on  the  fallible  opinion  of 
an  individual  of  the  present  day.  But  even  this  support  will  fail 
you.  This  subject,  however,  I  will  leave  to  "  An  Episcopalian," 
"who  is  particularly  interested  in  correcting  your  mistakes.  You 
think  my  commentary  on  his  letter  wholly  unnecessary  ;  and  yet 
you  have  occupied  one  of  your  numljcrs  Avith  replies  to  my  remarks. 
1  feel  at  some  loss  to  account  for  the  anxiety  you  discover  to  defend 
the  indulgence  of  the  sensual  appetites.  In  one  of  the  numbers  of 
your  Miscellanies  you  remai'k,  that  "  the  celibacy  of  the  Popish 
Clergy  is  none  of  the  smallest  corruptions  in  their  Church,  against 
which  every  orthodox  Clergyman  will  protest."  And  you  now  cen- 
sure me  for  my  intrusion  by  the  very  refined  observation — *'  A  brace 
on  the  table  is  pleasant  enough ;  but  a  brace  of  antagonists  is  not 
Tei'y  eligible." 

Episcopalians,  while  they  "  contend  for  the  faith,"  are  yet  mind- 
ful of  the  nacred  injunction  to  exercise  charity.  In  conformity  to 
the  order  handed  dov/n  from  the  beginning,  they  maintain,  that 
Bishops  only  have  the  power  of  ordination  ;  and  as  'A  general  pro- 
position, tliat  Ejiiscopal  ministrations  only  are  valid.  At  the  same 
time  they  are  disposed  to  believe,  that  when  any  Church  cannot 
obtain  the  lawful  succession,  God,  who  "  is  not  a  hard  master, 
reaping  where  he  has  not  sown,  and  gathering  where  he  has  not 
strawed,"  will  mercifully  dispense  with  it.  Nay,  that  he  will  gra- 
ciously accept  and  bless  the  ministrations  of  those  who  have  not  a 
lawful  call ;  when  the  error  is  not  chargeable  to  wilful  neglect  of 
the  means  of  information,  or  to  o!)stinate  resistance  to  the  light  of 
conviction.  In  this  way  docs  the  author  of  the  "  Companion  for  the 
Altar"  reconcile  truth  Avith  charity  :  in  this  way  docs  he  embrace  in 
the  arms  of  fraternal  benevolence  all  who,  according  to  the  talents 
bestowed  on  them  by  their  gracious  Maker,  seek  to  know  and  to 
do  his  will. 

You  will  pardon  me  if  I  assert,  that  you  appear  totally  unac- 
quainted with  the  doctrine  of  Succcssio7i,  as  maintained  in  every 
aga  of  tlic  Church.     You  think  that  -vvlicu  any  Church  throws  off 


VINDEX.    No.  II.  «» 

Episcopacy,  the  succeseion  is  interrupted.  No,  Sir!  as  long  a« 
there  remains  a  single  Bishop  in  the  world,  one  lawful  successor  of 
the  Apostles,  the  afioatolic  auccestion  remains.  We  are  imder  no 
apprehension  that  it  will  ever  be  lost.  It  is  founded  on  the  rock 
OF  jLges;  on  the  unfailingpromiseof  the  divine  Head  of  the  Church, 
•'  Ix),  I  am  with  you  alivay^  even  to  the  end  of  the  world." 

The  "  Episcopal  Priests"  in  this  State,  because  they  maintain 
tenets  obnoxious  to  you,  you  have  been  pleased  to  load  with  every 
epithet  of  contempt  and  opprobrium.  I  wish  not  to  repeat  expres- 
sions which  I  deeply  regret  you  ever  descended  to  use.  If  you 
consider  your  language  as  merely  "  playful,"  it  would  have  com- 
ported better  with  the  dignity  of  truth,  and  with  the  dictates  of 
charity,  if,  on  a  serious  subject.,  you  had  yourself  been  grave.  If 
you  mean  to  awe  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  into  silence,  be  as- 
sured you  will  fail  in  your  aim.  Your  attack  on  Episcopacy  has 
already  called  forth  in  her  defence  "  A  Layman"  and  "  Cyprian," 
who  do  honour  to  themselves  and  to  their  cause.  I  am  not  even 
without  the  hope  that  this  discu..sion,  which  you  have  provoked, "  will 
produce  some  effect  upon  those  who  are  teaching  things  contrary 
to  sound  doctrine  ;"  will  lead  the  candid  and  disfiassionate  to  ex- 
amine and  to  acknowledge  the  claims  of  that  Priesthood,  which 
has  subsisted  from  "the  Apostles'  times,"  and  which  was  never  laid 
aside,  until  the  sixteenth  century,  in  any  part  of  the  Christian 
world. 

To  the  author  of  the  "  Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts" 
you  apply  the  remark — "  Into  what  vagaries  and  absurdities  will 
men  sometimes  run  to  maintain  a  cause  which  they  have  incon- 
siderately espoused."  Now,  Sir,  to  impress  on  you  the  impropriety 
of  raahjudgitienty  I  will  inform  you,  that  the  opinions  advanced  by 
that  author  were  the  result  of  a  serious  and  full  investigation  of 
the  subject  on  which  he  wrote ;  and  that  the  sentiments  which  you 
style  absurd,  are  expressed  in  the  language  of  Divines,  who  ever 
have  been  and  ever  will  be  considered  as  the  brightest  ornaments 
of  the  English  Church.  But  from  you.  Sir,  a  charge  of  this  kind 
surprises  me — you,  Sir,  who,  when  you  explained  texts  of  Scripture, 
disdained  to  employ  the  lights  of  commentators  ;  and  who  recently 
made  it  your  boast  that,  in  the  present  discussion,  you  have  scorned 
to  take  either  "  counsel  or  assistance." 

I  confess  I  am  both  surprised  and  pleased  with  a  concession  in 
one  of  your  late  numbers.  You  observe,  "  I  would  be  cautious  in 
asserting  the  divine  right.,  either  of  Episcopacy  or  Presbyterian- 
ism."  And  yet  you  set  out  with  considering  Episcopacy  as  a  usur- 
pation; you  commenced  this  controversy  with  the  positive  assertion 
that  "  the  Classical  or  Presbyterial  form  of  Church  government  is 
the  true  and  only  one  which  Christ  hath  prescribed  in  his  word." 
I  congratulate  you,  Sir,  on  this  candid  renunciation  of  error — I  con- 
gratulate you  on  the  traces  of  mildness  and  moderation  which  you 
display  towards  "  An  Episcopalian."  O  si  sic  omnia  !  On  sacred 
subjects  we  should  disdain  those  little  arts  that  are  worthy  only  of 
the  dabbler  in  the  sinks  of  party  politics;  and  should  wield  the 
manly  weapons  of  candour  and  truth.  Pardon  me,  Sir;  I  honour 
in  you  that  conscientious  exercise  of  judgment  which  I  claim  for 
myself.    But  when  I  review  the  numbers  of  your  Miscellanies,  and 

2E 


210  VINDEX.    No.  II. 

discover  in  them  so  little  argument,  and  so  much  bold  assertion; 
so  little  dispassionate  investigation,  and  so  much  artful  appeal  to 
the  prejudices  and  passions  of  the  public;  so  little  seriousness  and 
candour,  and  so  much  ridicule  and  finesse  ;  I  am  disposed  to  reject 
the  belief  that  the  author  of  Miscellanies  is  a  gentleman,  for  whose 
talents,  piety,  and  sacred  character  I  chefish  the  sentiments  of  es- 
teem and  respect. 

VINDEX* 


THE  END, 


ERRATUM. 

Page  53,  line  14,  instead  of  "  Surely  a  Avord  cannot  be  men- 
tioned," read,  Scarcely  a  vjord  can  be  mentioned. 


/ 


''limj^M?iii,.irZ'f?9'^3l   Seminarv   Librane 


1    1012   Q11ftR   ^07-1 


"*: 


jjflL,.^ 


